Transcript Truthers: Conservatives Deny Obama Called Libya Attack An "Act Of Terror"

my good lord. so now responding to your petulant "crickets" and explaining to you the "likely" reason more people aren't responding has caused you to meltdown. i was trying to help you.

i didn't realize you're so insecure you can't handle it when someone explains something so simple to you.


You heard it here first folks...

According to Yurt, anyone who uses the "*crickets*" bit is just being petulant.

Good to know going forward.
 
So when Damo and all the other right wingers here were commenting on the response of the ME to the video, were they under Obama's magical powers? I think, you are taking Halloween too seriously.

I think what Damo and others were responding to (they can answer for themselves) was the information we were being given by the administration at the time. We trusted they were telling us the truth, kinda like how democrats voted to go to war in Iraq. Turns out, they were blatantly lying to us all along, and the attacks had nothing to do with any video or spontaneous protests. I don't know about Rush, but Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin and others, called it a terrorist attack on Day 1! It took the administration two weeks, and even now, the president refuses to use the word "terrorists" in describing those who killed our Ambassador and three others. As of today, administration officials are doubling-down on the assertion this might have had something to do with the video. It clearly DOESN'T!

All this is about is your side waving the bloody flag again. It's always repulsive to decent people. That does not necessarily mean Obama supporters, but it definitely excludes you and your kind.

No, this is about honesty and transparency from our president and administration. Apparently, Obama didn't think it was politically expedient to tell you that this was a large-scale orchestrated terrorist attack, since he had already told you this was now impossible for alQaeda to launch. I think he believed he couldn't withstand such a colossal foreign policy blunder, and he intentionally tried to suppress this information from the American people. If that turns out to be the case, it won't matter if he wins re-election, he WILL be impeached for it.
 
this is why you're a two faced douchebag. you whine about derision, yet that is pretty all you do. just shut your whining mouth.


Oh look...more name calling and whining from Yurt.

Pathetic, two-faced Yurt doesn't want people to realize he began the petty derision on page one of this thead, LOOOOOOOOOONG before I ever contributed to this thread.
 
Oh look...more name calling and whining from Yurt.

Pathetic, two-faced Yurt doesn't want people to realize he began the petty derision on page one of this thead, LOOOOOOOOOONG before I ever contributed to this thread.

you really are a whiny liar. i don't care if i started the derision. anyone can see i merely replied to bijou's derision. i don't run around the board whining about derision and insults, YOU DO you two faced douchebag.

now shut the fuck up and go home. :)
 
did i say that?


Not that I expect you to admit it when it's right in your face, but...


so now responding to your petulant "crickets" and explaining to you the "likely" reason more people aren't responding has caused you to meltdown. i was trying to help you.

i didn't realize you're so insecure you can't handle it when someone explains something so simple to you.


You said it...
 
you really are a whiny liar. i don't care if i started the derision. anyone can see i merely replied to bijou's derision. i don't run around the board whining about derision and insults, YOU DO you two faced douchebag.

now shut the fuck up and go home. :)


But you DO run around these boards whining about derision every single day.

There's thread after thread of your doing just that today...not that you'll admit as much.
 
But you DO run around these boards whining about derision every single day.

There's thread after thread of your doing just that today...not that you'll admit as much.

cite.

and don't claim my MOCKING of you and showing your dishonest hypocrisy is me actually whining. cite where i actually complain about it to another poster besides you.

go on...do it.
 
I think what Damo and others were responding to (they can answer for themselves) was the information we were being given by the administration at the time. We trusted they were telling us the truth, kinda like how democrats voted to go to war in Iraq. Turns out, they were blatantly lying to us all along, and the attacks had nothing to do with any video or spontaneous protests.

No, we were discussing Bill Maher and others criticism of the ME reaction to the video. Are you now claiming that none of the protests had anything to do with the video?

Did Obama provide these people with signs, photoshop this in or did God plant all of these images after the fact, like dinosaur bones, to convince the non-believers?!?!?

http://www.google.com/search?q=imag...eIrAG0m4GADA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=633

When is he going to rapture you mfers?


I don't know about Rush, but Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin and others, called it a terrorist attack on Day 1! It took the administration two weeks, and even now, the president refuses to use the word "terrorists" in describing those who killed our Ambassador and three others. As of today, administration officials are doubling-down on the assertion this might have had something to do with the video. It clearly DOESN'T!

So? The press once thought Dewey beat Truman. Many in the press said the court overruled Obama Care. I can remember how the mainstream press reacted to Oklahoma. It was a terrorist attack perpetrated by muslims. These tards can come out with inaccurate crap on day one. It's not as if you are going to hold them to account on it.

The Obama administration has to be more careful about the words they use, which is proven conclusively by the right wing media's endless word parsing on this. I DONT CARE if he uses the word "terrorists." WHY should I? Oh because, some dumbass that does not understand what 1/3 or government SERVICE means thinks I should? Fuck that! It sounds like more new speak bullshit from those who want to deny people rights based on their parsing and misunderstanding of words like "life" and "marriage."

No, this is about honesty and transparency from our president and administration. Apparently, Obama didn't think it was politically expedient to tell you that this was a large-scale orchestrated terrorist attack, since he had already told you this was now impossible for alQaeda to launch. I think he believed he couldn't withstand such a colossal foreign policy blunder, and he intentionally tried to suppress this information from the American people. If that turns out to be the case, it won't matter if he wins re-election, he WILL be impeached for it.

You have absolutely NO proof of a cover up. There is not even much to establish that it was a blunder. The fact that they took time and care to figure out what happened is not going to excite anybody but you morons. There is not going to be any impeachment.

The incident is unfortunate, but why are you under the impression that the American people are going to get up in arms over these 4 dead people after they ignored 1000s of dead soliders? Your side told them it was all worth it. Those are your chickens roosting!
 
Last edited:
i said the word "anyone"?

wow...you are a liar. your bolded and underlined highlight does not show the word "anyone".

LOL...you just can't help lying can you?


I told everyone you'd deny the facts right in front of your face and lo and behold...

You do just that!

You really are the gift that keeps on giving.
 
cite.

and don't claim my MOCKING of you and showing your dishonest hypocrisy is me actually whining. cite where i actually complain about it to another poster besides you.

go on...do it.


The definition of "two-faced"

One set of rules for yourself...and another set for everyone else.

In other words...

Yurt once again proves to be the very definition of two-faced.

He's allowed to mock me and show me my "dishonest hypocrisy" and it isn't called whining, but when I mock him and show him his "dishonest hypocrisy" I am "whining".

Good ol two-faced Yurt!
 
So then you are saying that Romney IS responsible for everything some right winger says? Akin, Fuqua, the "some rape easy" guy and all the other crazies?

That's the logical conclusion of what you are saying about Obama. Supposedly he has some sort of mind control over everyone that might be a little bit favorable to him or is not on the Romney bandwagon? Is he doing it through the fuoride in the water, soy protein or weed?

But, Romney being all decent, can't figure out how to work his magic underwear, I guess.
Utter nonsense, Romney didn't hire Akin to go out and speak for his administration in any official capacity whatsoever, what he says is not an extension of Romney's office, however Obama did hire those people to do that... They were sent out with a script, told what to say, and did so as an extension of his position.

Romney would be responsible for what his employee says as an official statement of his Administration. If they were saying something the Administration didn't approve of using the pulpit of the Administration he'd fire them, and he should.
 
The definition of "two-faced"

One set of rules for yourself...and another set for everyone else.

In other words...

Yurt once again proves to be the very definition of two-faced.

He's allowed to mock me and show me my "dishonest hypocrisy" and it isn't called whining, but when I mock him and show him his "dishonest hypocrisy" I am "whining".

Good ol two-faced Yurt!

LMAO

i knew you couldn't find a single post, other than ones where i MOCK you. what a pathetic liar. it is nearly boring proving your lies zappa.
 
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Someone please show me in this sentence, where he called the attacks in Libya a terrorist attack?

This is a declarative statement. It begins with "No acts of terror" and this means any act of terror, but he has not defined this particular event as an act of terror. This comes in the speech, following an admonishment to the people who produced the anti-Islamic video. Maybe he means that was the act of terror that won't shake our resolve, he hasn't said. He never did define the attacks as an act of terror, or terror attacks, or the people who perpetrated the act, terrorists, and to my knowledge, he still hasn't to this day.

Nowhere in the sentence he muttered, is a definitive statement this attack was a terror attack.
 
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Someone please show me in this sentence, where he called the attacks in Libya a terrorist attack?

This is a declarative statement. It begins with "No acts of terror" and this means any act of terror, but he has not defined this particular event as an act of terror. This comes in the speech, following an admonishment to the people who produced the anti-Islamic video. Maybe he means that was the act of terror that won't shake our resolve, he hasn't said. He never did define the attacks as an act of terror, or terror attacks, or the people who perpetrated the act, terrorists, and to my knowledge, he still hasn't to this day.

Nowhere in the sentence he muttered, is a definitive statement this attack was a terror attack.

You're a straw-grasping rube. Only the brainwashed morons are clinging to this the way you are, fool.

:bdh:
 
Back
Top