I would say, at least to my understanding of the situation, and I may be proven wrong once we have more information about what exactly TonySinclair means, that there is a chance, not a certainty, that you are, more likely than not, being willfully dense.
But no one called you a liar.
Also not Tony but pointing out that someone is making false statements is not saying they are lying. Lying means a willful intent to deceive. There are many possible explanations for someone to make false statements.
The person could be misinformed by others who are lying to him/her or who are honestly mistaken themselves.
The person could have misunderstood an actual source. Or honestly disagree about what that source demonstrates.
The person could biased to believe that which comports to their pre-existing belief set and to doubt that which produces cognitive dissonance.
Or a person could be lying.
No one here knows which one you are and makes no accusation that you are any particular one of the above.
Meanwhile what we know is that Obama came out the next day stating
And we have Obama’s actual speech to the UN, made while anti-American protests related to the video were ongoing across the Arab world, which honors the memory of Chris Stevens and the values that he stated Stevens believed in and died in service of. He then went on to discuss those values put them in contrast to the forces of intolerance and violence.
Part of his remarks go on to explain to those in the Arab world who are not familiar with a free press that tolerating speech we find offensive has to be part of that:
No, that last bit is not claiming the video was the cause and a statement that it does is false. It was a response those elements that were using the video in service of justifying attacks against Americans.
And as information develops in the aftermath of an event it is very much the case that both statements that we know there has been attack (if such was actually said) and that we do not yet know if the attack was preplanned or opportunistic can be true.
Facts appear to be that the Obama administration from day one characterized this event as a terror attack to the American people and stated with various degrees of emphasis along the way what was not yet known about it.
And again, how would the hypothetical Hillary having had jumped the gun in private conversation and stated she already “knows” it was a premeditated preplanned (rather than opportunistic) terror attack before the evidence was solid enough to state that publicly, have any bearing on her qualifications to be president?
Gee, guys, don’t be needlessly dense! Its totally obvious that admitting that the attack was a premeditated act of terror would bring up the whole issue of Obama being a secret Muslim. But if it was a spontaneous act of riot and mayhem, that would reflect so positively on the Obama admin., his usual critics would have been silent, or even approving! I mean, what choice would they have?
For the terrorists, I might have thought they would prefer the “spontaneous” scenario, makes their viewpoint seem more populist, more in tune with the common people of Libya. Could be someone suspected that the “someone in Ansar al-Sharia” who claimed responsibility was trying to cop the credit or even thought he was telling the truth. Or the guy who denied it knew it to be true but preferred the “popular uprising” spin. Certainly they were eager to exploit the whole “video” issue.
Didn’t know the truth for sure? Can’t say as I blame them for that. Didn’t tell the truth about what they knew, and when? Not sure I can much blame them for that, either. Not entirely sure why it matters all that much.
Not really all that much you can do about security of an embassy. An embassy is a statement of trust in the host nation, perhaps a polite fiction, perhaps not, depending. A well secured and fortified office is not an embassy so much as a military outpost. Diplomats bravely risk their lives for their country as well as do soldiers, main difference being they can’t shoot back.
Did you all watch Saturday Night Live last night? They basically gave her a free 10 minute campaign commercial.
SNL is a couple hours past my bedtime these days. (How much of an audience does it have anymore? I remember watching it 40 years ago when it was new and cool.)
Anyway, so what? The Fairness Doctrine bit the dust back when Reagan was President. The people that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or the army of mini-Rushes on talk radio across the country malign don’t get equal time on their programs.
So occasionally this state of affairs (which I deeply disagree with!) briefly works to the advantage of someone on the center-left side of the political spectrum. So what?
That was an “encore” presentation or re-broadcast of the season premier from 10/3/15. I’m not really sure why the showed it a second time so soon. So they gave her a free 10 minute campaign commercial twice. Plus, she was funny.
I couldn’t agree more, if people are going to get so bent about this type of thing then get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. Frankly it would eliminate a whole lot of the nonsense that passes for “news” these days from both sides.
As to ratings, according to this the season opener was up 13% in viewership over last year. And if you didn’t see the episode from a couple of weeks ago with their take on the Demcratic debate you should look it up. Larry David as Bernie, Alec Baldwin as Jim Webb. It was hilarious in all the right ways.
No, the Fairness Doctrine gives a false sense of security about bias in media. Now we know who is biased and on which side. SNL has been gently mocking Democrats and portraying Republicans as demons for decades. Jon Stewart followed the same template: Democrats will be mocked for their cute little foibles, while Republicans will be portrayed as batshit insane, criminals, liars, and probably warmongers too.
And your point?
The point is that we already know SNL’s biases. We knew they were anti-Hillary in 2008(most of the liberal media was once they fell in love with Obama), and now they are pro-Hillary because she’s the best Democrat available.
They are the palace guard.
It’s also possible that the Republicans are much more mockable.
I’ll admit they are. But it does get disappointing sometimes how they’ll pass up obvious points of attack because they don’t want to actually draw blood.
I looked forward to Bill Maher’s comedy DVD a few years ago because I love his political commentary, but it was 99% about the Republicans. Whatever happened to the media and comedians challenging the powers than be? Instead, they went after the minority party. LIke I said, palace guard.
Call out the Republican comedians, they will rush to the stage! Let’s see, there’s Dennis Miller. Gallagher. “Redneck” Jeff Foxworthy. And Dennis Miller…
Again, comedians want to get laughs. There’s just not that much that’s funny about Obama… remember Clinton on SNL? Lots about Bill Clinton can be funny.
So comedians and shows like SNL will go for the targets that yield laughs… and maybe the Democrats aren’t doing that much stuff that’s laughable right now. It’s entirely reasonable that it has nothing to do with bias or “palace guard” nonsense, but rather the behavior of the two parties.
Felonius Monk!
Clinton is beyond hilarious and they did go for the jugular in 2008. Hopefully they do that now. They have the material. If they don’t use it, it’s because there are too many fans among the writers.
They have an angle – Hillary as the not-quite-human ambition-monster (and Sanders as the weird old man yelling from his lawn) – and that angle is funny, at least sometimes. It may not be as negative as you like, but I doubt they care about that.
So you’re complaining that comedians are accurately portraying the Republicans?
I mentioned this in my last post but here is SNL with a funny bit about the Democratic debate for those who missed it a couple weeks back.
It is long but hilarious.
This is asinine. I’ve told you this multiple times with cites to the testimony.
It baffles me that you can’t understand something that simple. What exactly is confusing you? In specific. Because what I typed there is something that almost anyone should be able to follow. This isn’t an elaborate Columbo plot. It’s a simple timeline.
Both can’t be true, but one or both can be wrong, based on intel that was available at the time.
No one has avoided the question. People have answered it clearly and intelligently. You appear to not be able or willing to parse the explanation spoke plain.
You don’t have to be a liar to be embarrassingly wrong.
The “left wing” members of the board aren’t the ones that can’t understand totally plain language explanations of their questions.
Please don’t personalize things. Attack the post, not the poster.