Impeach president Obama.

[Adam]

BLEEEEEEEDING bias. I expect more from you, soaf. An anti religious skeptic shouldn't display such faith.

Not faith at all

I looked at it, saw something which discredited it, and made an informed decision not to bother with the rest

You can't read 100% of everything, no matter what - there isn't the time

If you get the time, look through them all. Misinformation is purposely peppered into proof to discourage people from realizing what is going on.

Wasn't the purpose of that list to do the opposite?

[Bastet]

BLEEEEEEEDING bias. I expect more from you, soaf. An anti religious skeptic shouldn't display such faith.

Not faith at all

I looked at it, saw something which discredited it, and made an informed decision not to bother with the rest

You can't read 100% of everything, no matter what - there isn't the time

If you get the time, look through them all. Misinformation is purposely peppered into proof to discourage people from realizing what is going on.

Wasn't the purpose of that list to do the opposite?

How can you know if you don't find out for yourself?  I know it works both ways which is why verifying or debunking each claim is important. I am on my way to school. I wont have any time to do it myself.

[Bastet]

Didn't make any difference to the media either. But I haven't forgotten about it, and it makes a hell of a difference to me.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stevens.asp

[Bastet]

  Was Ambassador Stevens' torture and murder broadcast live for the whole 7 hours? 
   Is that how we know his pleas were ignored? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Why does it need to be broadcast on the news channel all nice and easy for us, people? They aren't giving you actual news. You realize that, don't you?

He was dragged away from the building, and was not found again for a total of twelve hours. Judging by all the wounds on his body, trauma to the anus, and his overall condition, its estimated they had their way with him for several hours. Estimation is judged on how long it took to find his dead body, and the trauma to it.

Get this, it was originally officially stated that his mutilated corpse got that way from "smoke inhalation".

Anyway. That was a terrible question to ask, CBC. Just so you know. I really don't understand it, to be honest. Does this come from a desire to deny things like this even happen? Maybe some sort of distorted "Lets think positive! It can't be that bad!" attitude? What is wrong with people?

Again, maybe for some people it takes an entire library of references with the flying spaghetti monster floating above you confirming what is going on, jesus Christ nodding his head, chuck Norris giving the thumbs up, and zombie George Washington also present to confirm, but it doesn't take that much for me to see how horrible things like this are.

It matters. Stop being sociopaths.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Recovery_of_Ambassador_Stevens


  Where is the account of Stevens' torture and injuries?  Did you mean to link me to a different article?


  "They aren't giving you actual news.  You realize that, don't you?" 
 
  How do you know the picture you posted is any more legitimate than the non-actual news?

  I asked that question because you said Obama and Hillary Clinton ignored Stevens' pleas for 7 hours.
  I wonder how you know that that assertion is true.  Just asking for more information.   

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/us-AMBASSADor-LIBYA-e1347455467920.jpg

[Kapkao]

Et Svecia.

He's pretty popular in Europe. The most hated US presidents ever in Europe are probably Reagan and G.W. Bush.

Reagan? You mean Nixon, right? Reagan jumped on stage to resounding applause.

[Beardy McFuckface]

And this turned out to be FAR longer than I expected. Perhaps a bit rambly and weak in areas too.

Obama is met with apathy over here and US politics in general, at least in my area. Not surprising considering where I live is full of Sinn Fein supporters, IRA members and smugglers living in the "borderlands" between Ireland and N. Ireland.

I get kinda cynical about this kind of nonsense because I grew up with it. Constant news of bombs going off and people being shot. Having to go through heavily guarded military checkpoints to cross borders and sometimes getting checked in case we were smuggling illegal stuff across the border. I remember when I was 5, I got lost in a festival in Belfast. One of the British soldiers who was guarding it from any attacks found me and took me back to my parents. Apparently bombs went off that day and some people died, so my parents were really shitting themselves when I got lost.

I also know people who had family members in the IRA and they had stories such as them being shot and friends killed in front of them during various skirmishes between catholic and protestant communities. It always struck me odd on how they could tell me it with a straight face, like it was some casual recollection rather than mentioning a traumatic event.

I do not know the full story about it because in such situations, it's very very hard to find the truth on who did it and why. After all, I was not there to witness these directly. It's partly why atrocities over here are still mostly debated heavily between both sides. People can argue black and blue about what "really happened", back it up with half-arsed articles, videos and testimonials, but I honestly think nobody has a fucking clue and are perhaps making excuses half the time just to bicker and fight some more. The only facts we really know is that shit happened between catholics and protestants, and people died. I guess this is why I'm so skeptical when it comes to this thread, since what I'm presented is in the same form as the news over here when a bomb went off etc.

My point is that you can read up on who did this and that and say it's awful, but do you actually know what happened or are you just relying on the information given to you at face value? You were not there to confirm it, so why believe in it without the proper evidence? Why rely on talking heads, quotes, videos, articles etc. to back up your viewpoint? Wouldn't it be better to question it yourself when looking at the proper evidence at hand, and then investigating into it to find the answers?

[RageBeoulve]

18. Barack Hussein Obama’s Ineligibility to be POTUS because he was born in Kenya


I skimmed thru, saw this, and gave up

Come on, rage

you can do better than that

Bias. Has it been disproven? It has indeed been proven that the birth certificate for him on file is a forgery.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html

I skimmed thru

BLEEEEEEEDING bias. I expect more from you, soaf. An anti religious skeptic shouldn't display such faith.

Issues such as his birth certificate and some of the other more fringe theories are why people don't take you as seriously as you want them too.  Obama has been a pretty shitty president so far and has done plenty of questionable things so far you don't have to resort to wacky theories.  Among them the drone war,National Defense Authorization Act,  Guantanamo Bay , NSA scandal, the IRS scandal,the AP scandal and more choose one and get some unbiased sources

That's not a weak proposal. If the man was not born in America, he is not legally eligible to be the president. And what do you know, the only proof of his birth is a pdf, which is dripping evidence of being tampered with. I mean he could produce the paper document to shut everyone up, so why doesn't he? If he has it, whats there to be afraid of?

[RageBeoulve]

And this turned out to be FAR longer than I expected. Perhaps a bit rambly and weak in areas too.

Obama is met with apathy over here and US politics in general, at least in my area. Not surprising considering where I live is full of Sinn Fein supporters, IRA members and smugglers living in the "borderlands" between Ireland and N. Ireland.

I get kinda cynical about this kind of nonsense because I grew up with it. Constant news of bombs going off and people being shot. Having to go through heavily guarded military checkpoints to cross borders and sometimes getting checked in case we were smuggling illegal stuff across the border. I remember when I was 5, I got lost in a festival in Belfast. One of the British soldiers who was guarding it from any attacks found me and took me back to my parents. Apparently bombs went off that day and some people died, so my parents were really shitting themselves when I got lost.

I also know people who had family members in the IRA and they had stories such as them being shot and friends killed in front of them during various skirmishes between catholic and protestant communities. It always struck me odd on how they could tell me it with a straight face, like it was some casual recollection rather than mentioning a traumatic event.

I do not know the full story about it because in such situations, it's very very hard to find the truth on who did it and why. After all, I was not there to witness these directly. It's partly why atrocities over here are still mostly debated heavily between both sides. People can argue black and blue about what "really happened", back it up with half-arsed articles, videos and testimonials, but I honestly think nobody has a fucking clue and are perhaps making excuses half the time just to bicker and fight some more. The only facts we really know is that shit happened between catholics and protestants, and people died. I guess this is why I'm so skeptical when it comes to this thread, since what I'm presented is in the same form as the news over here when a bomb went off etc.

My point is that you can read up on who did this and that and say it's awful, but do you actually know what happened or are you just relying on the information given to you at face value? You were not there to confirm it, so why believe in it without the proper evidence? Why rely on talking heads, quotes, videos, articles etc. to back up your viewpoint? Wouldn't it be better to question it yourself when looking at the proper evidence at hand, and then investigating into it to find the answers?

No. I don't know for absolutely certain without a doubt because I was not present for anything on the list, but I can tell you that all that stuff is impeachable to me, and none of it has been debunked. NONE. If it cannot be debunked, then it is true. In fact that's how a court of law works. You don't have to be present to see the crime as a juror, you just have to see enough evidence to support it. And if even a fourth of the shit on that list is true, (which I've seen enough to convince me that at least three fourths is true), then the man belongs in prison for the rest of his natural life.

[RageBeoulve]

  I asked that question because you said Obama and Hillary Clinton ignored Stevens' pleas for 7 hours.
  I wonder how you know that that assertion is true.  Just asking for more information.

Oh sorry about that. That's human enough. I'm not used to speaking with actual human beings lately. You're asking if there was anything they even could have done to save him then. I understand. The answer is yes. Yes, they could have. In fact they had to go out of their way not to.

An embassy cable on June 25 expressed fear of rising Islamic extremism in eastern Libya around Benghazi, and noted that the black flag of Al-Qaeda “has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities.” On August 2, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable requesting 11 additional body guards, noting “Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach,”

But these requests for additional security were repeatedly denied, as security officials testified before Chairman Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee earlier this month.  Obama and his allies did not want a show of American force in the country that would offend Muslim sensibilities.  They wanted to rely instead on the host country’s security that the embassy was telling them was inadequate and could not be depended upon.

the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date.  But they did just the opposite, reducing security.

September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance.  The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting

and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came.  Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/25/benghazi-obamas-actions-amount-to-a-shameful-dereliction-of-duty/

[odeon]

BLEEEEEEEDING bias. I expect more from you, soaf. An anti religious skeptic shouldn't display such faith.

Not faith at all

I looked at it, saw something which discredited it, and made an informed decision not to bother with the rest

You can't read 100% of everything, no matter what - there isn't the time

If you get the time, look through them all. Misinformation is purposely peppered into proof to discourage people from realizing what is going on.

Which means that you need to be careful with your sources. Sadly, it's not the case here.

[odeon]

Et Svecia.

He's pretty popular in Europe. The most hated US presidents ever in Europe are probably Reagan and G.W. Bush.

Reagan? You mean Nixon, right? Reagan jumped on stage to resounding applause.

Reagan.

[odeon]

If it cannot be debunked, then it is true. In fact that's how a court of law works.

Funny. I thought you were innocent until proven guilty. Reasonable doubt and all that.

There is a difference, you know.

['andersom']

Et Svecia.

He's pretty popular in Europe. The most hated US presidents ever in Europe are probably Reagan and G.W. Bush.

Reagan? You mean Nixon, right? Reagan jumped on stage to resounding applause.

Reagan.

 

[El]

How can you know if you don't find out for yourself?  I know it works both ways which is why verifying or debunking each claim is important. I am on my way to school. I wont have any time to do it myself.

And now she's doing it, too.

[Bastet]

How can you know if you don't find out for yourself?  I know it works both ways which is why verifying or debunking each claim is important. I am on my way to school. I wont have any time to do it myself.

And now she's doing it, too.

Doing what, exactly? My class is out of town. I was be riding all day. Then had 4 hours of class afterward. Yet another ride back home this morning. Now you're acting like a miserable cunt again. Right on cue. I suppose it distracts you from your endless suffering from your fucked up family you don't seem to mind living with.