Justifying blind loyalty to obama

[SpatiallyAware]

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying onlookers are just as guilty as the people who committed the actual crime?


Anyway lets see your sources because everything you just said was either a lie, a distortion of the truth, or just pure bullshit.

Btw, again, did you read the ARB report on Benghazi?

What our Dear Leader did by intentionally dramatizing the role of the video is hugely immoral. It might not be specifically illegal, but if a repub president did this our resident liberal extremists would be foaming at the mouth, calling for punishments and bipartisan and on and on and on....


But.... When our Dear Leader does it, it's automatically ok. That's the disgusting part. You all can keep side stepping the main issue here, but the bottom line is that obama can do whatever he wants and you all completely blindly support him.

 

[Texashiker]

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying onlookers are just as guilty as the people who committed the actual crime?

Terry Nichols did not do the actual Oklahoma bombing, but he did help McVeigh. And where is Terry at now?

If you know a crime is going to happen, and you act in a manner that makes the crime easier or more effective, are you not guilty?

 

[Steeplerot]

Tasty tasty tears of right wing angst!

Grow the fuck up, conservative cultism is so 1990s.

 

[Attic]

I think the thread topic conditions some of the recent events too much.

Obamas support remains for three reasons.

1) we have a polarized electorate which acts as a moat.
2) Obama is a great politician
3) Non of the recent events stick to Obama, partially due to 1 and 2.

Republicans ought to simply make some more general points about the recent events and drop the rhetoric.

Intense divisions allow for abuses of power to be justified, republican leaders need to lead by example here and speak with less rhetoric and have a little faith in Americans to evaluate all facts and come to a conclusion. This would be in stark contrast to what was done with Benghazi, and would implicitly make that difference clear.

It's clear to all but the most partisan hacks that Benghazi was mishandled to a severe degree, as was IRS targeting of conservative groups. The question isn't so much as who did it, but why was it done. Manipulating information and punishing those you disagree with comes down to removing power from citizens to allow for those in power to keep a firm grasp on it. Obama can't be directly blamed for either because its more a derivative of current conditions in DC than what Obama can really be seen for. Moving forward appropriately needs to be done by both sides, but if republican aren't willing to drop the "scandal" and move forward with dems, then we likely will see a lot more abuses of power.

 

[ivwshane]

Do we know that?

Do you?

To not heed wannings was the right thing to do?

Was it not? And if not what do you base this on and do you think that basis is better than what the military based their decision on?

You did not answer my question, does lack of action contribute to a crime?

Does a lack of evidence prove a crime was committed?

Or better yet, does making it easier for the crime to be committed contribute to the crime?

Does a lack of evidence warrens accusations of wrong doing? Is the president now guilty until proven innocent?

If president obama knew of the warnings, and did not take action, would he be guilty?

Regarding the last question: Are we basing this on past examples of similar situations? If not then what would he be guilty of exactly?

 

[fskimospy]

Do we know that?

There is no evidence that he gave the order. Wondering why people aren't impeaching Obama over things there are no evidence for is irrational.

To not heed wannings was the right thing to do?

Clearly not heeding warnings would not have been the right thing to do, considering the outcome.

In order for you to fault Obama on this you need to show that:
1.) Obama personally was warned about the embassy.
2.) A reasonable person would have taken those warnings seriously enough to act on them in a way that would have prevented the attack.
3.) Obama failed to take action or prevented someone else from taking action that would have led to #2.

You of course can do none of those things.

You did not answer my question, does lack of action contribute to a crime?

If president obama knew of the warnings, and did not take action, would he be guilty?

The definition of treason laid out in the US Constitution is this:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

No.

So once again, can you lay out SPECIFIC charges against Obama that you can back up with evidence? You've accused the man of treason, called for his impeachment, etc. These are serious charges. Why no evidence?

 

[Texashiker]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

By not taking action, and by ordering troops to stand down, the obama administration aided our enemies in attacking the embassy.

 

[fskimospy]

Terry Nichols did not do the actual Oklahoma bombing, but he did help McVeigh. And where is Terry at now?

If you know a crime is going to happen, and you act in a manner that makes the crime easier or more effective, are you not guilty?

Terry Nichols gave McVeigh cash, scouted the location, and helped build the bomb that killed all those people.

I want you to draw a comparison between the two and tell me exactly how they relate. Once again, be specific.

 

[Texashiker]

I want you to draw a comparison between the two and tell me exactly how they relate. Once again, be specific.

See post 107

 

[fskimospy]

By not taking action, and by ordering troops to stand down, the obama administration aided our enemies in attacking the embassy.

1.) We already covered that you have no evidence that Obama gave such an order. Why did you try and suddenly state this as a fact? That is dishonest.

Furthermore as actual experts on the matter have said, sending more US troops into an environment like that could very well have led to even more US deaths without affecting the outcome. This is why former Defense Secretary Gates referred to views such as yours as 'cartoonish'.

2.) Basically every successful attack against the US could have been prevented if action was taken ahead of time. Is every president that has an attack succeed on his watch guilty of treason?

I notice that you did not address any of the stipulations as to what Obama would need to have done or not done in order to be responsible for this. I imagine that was on purpose because you can't.

 

[fskimospy]

See post 107

That is batshit insane. Shockingly enough, not acting to prepare an embassy ahead of time is not like building a bomb that kills more than a hundred people.

 

[Texashiker]

That is batshit insane. Shockingly enough, not acting to prepare an embassy ahead of time is not like building a bomb that kills more than a hundred people.

By acting in a manner that aided the enemy, hasn't the obama administration met the definition of treason?

These were willful acts - not heeding the warnings, not adding security, not evacuating the embassy and lastly, ordering troops to stand down.

 

[fskimospy]

By acting in a manner that aided the enemy, hasn't the obama administration met the definition of treason?

These were willful acts - not heeding the warnings, not adding security, not evacuating the embassy and lastly, ordering troops to stand down.

No. You clearly did not read what I quoted to you. As should be readily apparent, simply doing something that aids the enemy is not treason. If it were, every general that made a mistake, every person that mistakenly dropped an important paper, etc. would be guilty of treason.

The actual quote is "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort". That means that you need to both consort and 'adhere' to our enemies, then act to give them aid and comfort. So in order to show Obama to be guilty of treason you must show that he 'adhered' with those plotting to attack our embassy and then aided them. I won't hold my breath.

As for your examples, the first three are all different ways of saying exactly the same thing. The last is an unsubstantiated accusation that you admitted was unsubstantiated and are now continuing to dishonestly employ.

 

[Texashiker]

No. You clearly did not read what I quoted to you. As should be readily apparent, simply doing something that aids the enemy is not treason. If it were, every general that made a mistake, every person that mistakenly dropped an important paper, etc. would be guilty of treason.

I guess you and I see the Benghazi attack‎ in different settings.

I see a government that was warned up to 3 days ahead of time, no action was taken, and orders were given not to take action.

And then, obama tries to deflect reasons for the attack.

This is not a simple mistake, or even an oversight. It was a calculated move not to protect our embassy or its personal.

By refusing to protect the embassy before the attack, and refusing to provide aid during the attack, the obama administration aided the enemy.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess you and I see the Benghazi attack‎ in different settings.

I see a government that was warned up to 3 days ahead of time, no action was taken, and orders were given not to take action.

This is the last time I will ask you to stop being dishonest about saying things that you admit you have no evidence for.

And then, obama tries to deflect reasons for the attack.

This is not a simple mistake, or even an oversight. It was a calculated move not to protect our embassy or its personal.

By refusing to protect the embassy before the attack, and refusing to provide aid during the attack, the obama administration aided the enemy.

So at this point you're just making up new definitions for things. Okay.

 

[Bowfinger]

While I may some of my facts wrong, does it change anything?

You're being too easy on yourself. You have many critical facts wrong on each of the issues you cite. Yes, this changes not only accountability, but the corrective measures that must be taken to prevent similar issues in the future.

Justice department still has the phone records.
Reporters are still worried about protecting their sources.
IRS was still able to harass conservative groups.
4 people are still dead from the Benghazi attack.

Yes, those are largely accurate. You continue to dodge the question of what role Obama played in each that warrants impeachment.

And nobody is going to answer for anything.

And that is absolutely wrong. People have already answered for some of them, and will continue to to do.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

What is really disgusting is this fake left/right paradigm you people keep buying into. You really think one party is different from the other for some unknown reason. The truth is your government is taking political prisoners, arresting dissidents on false charges and trying to have plain clothes supporters plant evidence on them while in the act of being arrested, yet here is the head in the sand gang fighting over the right and left still...as if they aren't both working against all of us.

Free Adam Kokesh, American political prisoner:
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/adam-kokesh-is-a-political-prisoner-05192013#

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think there is a kernel of a legitimate point here. Personally I think Benghazi has always been a red herring and I certainly don't blame the President for the actions of some low-level functionaries at the IRS, nor for all of the actions of the Justice Department, but I have come to question, to some extent, the professional competence of the President and his administration. All of these mini-scandals hitting at once does not inspire a great deal of confidence.

I am still of the opinion that his personal competence and judgment are better than his predecessor's, but I do not think history will regard President Obama as one of the greats.

 

[Bowfinger]

I guess you and I see the Benghazi attack‎ in different settings.

I see a government that was warned up to 3 days ahead of time,

Really? Cite your source, because I understand that to be a total fabrication. The CIA had it had no advanced knowledge of an attack on our Benghazi facility. It had warned of prior attacks on other nations' facilities, and that general conditions in Benghazi were unstable.

no action was taken, and orders were given not to take action.

Again, cite sources. The Pentagon (not Obama) ordered four Special Forces men in Tripoli to stand down and remain in Tripoli to defend our embassy. What else are you talking about? Once again, offer specific, informed points instead of parroting Fox-style innuendo.

And then, obama tries to deflect reasons for the attack.

Wrong. It was the CIA that stated, right from the very beginning, that this attack was related to the YouTube video. The CIA. This is an inconvenient fact for the nutter media, and I'm not surprised they neglect to mention it, but it's right there in black and white, in the very first set of CIA talking points.

This is not a simple mistake, or even an oversight. It was a calculated move not to protect our embassy or its personal.

By refusing to protect the embassy before the attack, and refusing to provide aid during the attack, the obama administration aided the enemy.

Pure nonsense and partisan demagoguery. It's also, once again, factually inaccurate. It was not an embassy. That is in Tripoli. It was primarily a CIA outpost with a small State Department presence.

 

[fskimospy]

I think there is a kernel of a legitimate point here. Personally I think Benghazi has always been a red herring and I certainly don't blame the President for the actions of some low-level functionaries at the IRS, nor for all of the actions of the Justice Department, but I have come to question, to some extent, the professional competence of the President and his administration. All of these mini-scandals hitting at once does not inspire a great deal of confidence.

I am still of the opinion that his personal competence and judgment are better than his predecessor's, but I do not think history will regard President Obama as one of the greats.

I think "President Obama did a bad job" is a very legitimate thing to argue for. "Obama committed treason" is either ignorance, stupidity, or irrational hatred.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think "President Obama did a bad job" is a very legitimate thing to argue for. "Obama committed treason" is either ignorance, stupidity, or irrational hatred.

Oh, I agree 100%. I do not buy off on the notion of his having committed treason in any way, shape or form.

 

[nageov3t]

if his numbers didn't change after expanding CIA drone assassinations, wholeheartedly embracing the Patriot Act, and throwing Universal Healthcare under the bus, they're probably not going to change after Benghazi.

 

[Texashiker]

This is the last time I will ask you to stop being dishonest about saying things that you admit you have no evidence for.

Three days advance warning

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html

www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...days-before-deadly-benghazi-consulate-attack/

Wrong. It was the CIA that stated, right from the very beginning, that this attack was related to the YouTube video. The CIA. This is an inconvenient fact for the nutter media, and I'm not surprised they neglect to mention it, but it's right there in black and white, in the very first set of CIA talking points.

Didn't obama give a speech and the UN where he talks about the video and benghazi?

I think "President Obama did a bad job" is a very legitimate thing to argue for. "Obama committed treason" is either ignorance, stupidity, or irrational hatred.

Aiding the enemy is an act of treason.

 

[Attic]

I think there is a kernel of a legitimate point here. Personally I think Benghazi has always been a red herring and I certainly don't blame the President for the actions of some low-level functionaries at the IRS, nor for all of the actions of the Justice Department, but I have come to question, to some extent, the professional competence of the President and his administration. All of these mini-scandals hitting at once does not inspire a great deal of confidence.

I am still of the opinion that his personal competence and judgment are better than his predecessor's, but I do not think history will regard President Obama as one of the greats.

Obama came into the office to change the tone on Washington, he can still achieve this. It would be an incredible legacy to unite the country under the current circumstances he faces. I personally think his biggest hurdle is hubris. He is an incredibly talented, he needs to roll up the sleeves and break down some barriers between party politics and let that sentiment lead the way forward. Republicans and dems are much closer than many are able to see.

 

[WackyDan]

IRS? What does Obama have to do with the IRS? Do you have any evidence of any communication from the White House to the bush appointed head, this scandal happened under, that's shows any directive to descriminate?

There is enough evidence that points to the IRS scandal being run higher up from within the IRS... Not just by two worker bees in Ohio. It is also suggested that there were indeed members of the administration at the white house that knew this was going on before the election... and that the IRS heads were aware before the election.

The key term there is "before the election" and just like Benghazi... "before the election".

If laws were broken, we need to know by whom and take action. If no laws were broken it still suggests an administration with questionable ethics.

Given that... Why all the push back on having a Special Counsel investigate? If there is no law broken, and no questions of ethical behavior, what do they have to fear by having a special counsel assigned to investigate? Do we honestly trust our own gov't to investigate itself as Obama has suggested it should be handled? If you actually answer yes to that you are delusional.