rigney

Are you saying no one knows enough about atheism to talk about it? Because if so that's ridiculously false.

Cuthber pretty well answered your question in post # 6. Generally folks don't deny some ignorance about many things. But to poke fun usually means the person is either scared or knows nothing of the subject..Only wish I had a better aptitude for science.

I don't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden (ditto: God).

For some reason Rigney thinks that's too profound for anyone to cope with.

No! A good logical discussion is fine, But to make fun of anothers beliefs only conveys something less than ignorance.

No one alive today has the profundity of dealing with such a topic. Perhaps in another 10,000 years when science is better qualified?

 

These are good questions. Whilst I did mention Utopia, I was using that as the best case scenario if one was to create a universe. We can't observe other universes with less harmful fitness landscapes (if they are possible) and/or less challenging environments. So we can't know if those less severe universes are actually better.

 

 

 

My opinions have changed a fair amount since the start of the thread. I think a good way to consider this hypothetical situation is from the point of view of society. The process I go through (now) is considering the ethics of creating life, and weighing up the positives and negatives as rationally as I can.

 

In the following paragraph, society can be replaced by "a rational person" assuming that societies laws and ethics are similar or the same as a rational person. I'd assume that most people also support societies laws and ethics as well.

 

Society has various ethical considerations and laws about creation of life such as abortion and animal testing (transgenic and non-transgenic). I think the hypothetical consideration I presented is comparable to these, and would ask how society would judge an entity creating the universe. Consider the example of creating and breeding transgenic line of sod1 mice (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mice). In most societies there are fairly heavy regulations and restrictions on making and breeding/keeping transgenic lines such as sod1 mice, and creation of such lines has to be approved in order to be created (intention of use is considered, according to wiki). So, creation of the universe should be judged in the same way the decision to create such lines of transgenic animals are. This is where the intention of the creator is examined, but the intention is unknown so various possibilities can be considered.

 

What intention could society find acceptable to deem the creation of the universe acceptable? What intention's are unacceptable? would be important questions to ask

 

An inquiry into the intentions of the creator are needed in order to come to a conclusion in this hypothetical scenario. Shouldn't an approach similar to this be applied to the situation (assuming one is honest and rational). Wouldn't we also have to agree that the intention to create this universe for the purpose of scientific discovery to advance medicine is acceptable (assuming we are honest and won't contradict ourselves)?

 

I have no idea what various religions with a deity say about their god's/gods' intentions to creating this universe, and whether or not their god had a choice, and whether it created this universe to the best of it's ability. Would there be a difference of conclusion about the creator's decision from a religious view point when compared to societies/rational person point of view?

 

Do people agree with this process/reasoning to justify an opinion of the creator's decision (and then ultimately using that opinion on whether one can worship/admire/respect said creator)? If so, what intentions do people think are justifyable?

It's hypocritial to worship something of which you haven't a clue. Theist's, God and Devil worshipers, plus the easily led of all types have made this mistake for millennia. If you need to worship something, why not simply say, "Since to my knowledge the Universe exists, I will worship it." I may be wrong, but my thoughts are that Aboriginie's the world over has always maintained this concept. It's only when "Do Gooders" write, document and demand that theirs is the only way to worship, do we get in trouble. If we actually knew, I think it's the inherent nature of all living things to worship something beyond their comprehention. As humans we top this chain regardless of how, who, or what we believe.

 

Perhaps, but I'll throw my point of view in there. Billy Graham's point of view is that his religion is the only right one, and that to be accepted into heaven, I must accept Jesus as my saviour and such. Where the argument falls down logically is why Christianity is any more "correct" than another religion. If there were evidence for such a thing, it might not be so illogical, but since religion is a matter of faith rather than evidence, it leads to the question of whether any religion is more correct than the others. So I guess in that sense, you could say that yes, his argument is totally wrong from many standpoints.

I'll not disagree with you. My aim was only to make a comparison between Billy and Steven, not cut anything in stone. And religions, there are likely as many as there are languages and dialects. Native American had what you might call tribal religion to the extent that at times, it didn't even reach the next camp area. Statistically, as things stand at the moment it may take another ten to ???? thousands of years to iron out the kinks and ignorance of the situation, If then. And people?. When you try isolating them from their beliefs, regardless of what they might be, you'd better have a pretty good arguement they can understand in order to sway them. And since most people aren't gifted with a scientific mind, it isn't going to be easy. And let's keep the few idiots who constantly stir the sh-t by trying to abolish holidays, at a distance, especially "Christmas", Personally I like all the holidays including Kwanza, Yom Kippur and Jug Day, even though I have no idea what the first two mean?

I just don't want to see any of them go AWOL.

http://pinterest.com/pin/53339576808270671/Not to disagree with your assessment of human falability, but when looking at the disparity between religious and non-religious people, we have a long way to go in correcting world problems. Good Luck! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

 

Not to disagree with your assessment of human falability, but when looking at the disparity between religious and non-religious people, we have a long way to go in correcting world problems. Good Luck!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

 

Had to jump back into my latest post since a friend left this link a few minutes ago.. I'm not into spontaneity, flash mobs or anything similar, even when it comes to being impromptu. But I do love Christmas Carols. Hell, After looking through all of these crowds I couldn't find a single terrorist, detractor or anyone averse to caroling. or enjoying a happy day in their lives. " Look, Listen and Enjoy"!

http://pinterest.com/pin/53339576808270671/

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/29/christmas-holiday-flash-mob-good-people

I disagree with your opening premise. It assumes that religion and science are equally valid and I'll tell you why I don't think they are.

 

I see where you might disagree, but to assume something without question is entirely different. I gave no percentages favoring either Steve or Billy to make such a comparison. To do that you would have to take the world population and break it down into religious and non-religious factions.

 

Personally, I see my "belief system" in three parts. Faith is an unshakeable belief in something that has nothing but that faith to support it as an explanation. In essence, it's believing with all my heart in something I can't possibly know to be true. Faith can cause you to do things based on a belief that has no basis. People have been known to lose everything because their faith guaranteed them a certain outcome. Some Christian Scientists have lost their lives for no reason because they chose faith over known medical procedure.

 

Hope is believing in something that might be true but acknowledging that it might not. I can hope I'll win the lottery but my knowledge of probability would keep me from rushing out and buying a yacht before the drawing.

 

That wouldn't be hope, but stupidity!.

 

Trust allows me to accept the explanation that has the most evidence to support it. This is what science means to me, accepting that an ongoing search for the best answer is much better than believing something that others hope or have faith is the Truth and never question. Trust is earned every day by being honed and supported and constantly examined, never being held as sacred and unassailable.

 

No getting around it, You, I and every living thing on this planet will eventually die. But when our time comes will we have found out all that is to known of the deep secrets of this universe? I very seriosly doubt it. Or will our trust be in the knowledge of others who hopefully will carry on discoveries leading to a higher understanding of it? Steven Hawkins is the best exampel to which I can relate. Here is a guy debilitated for practically his entire adult life. Yet Hawkins believes in what Hawkins rationalizes. If anyone has reason to not believe in a supreme entity, his is certainly among the best. Me, being an agnostic; I wonder, when his time comes to depart this life, will he momentarily hope for something greater the sum of all parts?

 

So no, I don't think religion and science have the same validity. Religion relies on the flimsiest of beliefs, faith, while science earns my trust every day with constant examination and curiosity.

 

Agreed! Science and religion are as dichotomous as crude oil and water. But I wonder, could there be a place sometime in the future where there may be some mutual understanding? And flimsy beliefs? Religion of one faith or another precedes science by thousands of years.

 

 

Yes. Yes it can.

</thread>

 

I'll not refute your answer, but isn't that a bit short for a cognizant thought to anything?

I disagree with your opening premise. It assumes that religion and science are equally valid and I'll tell you why I don't think they are.

 

Personally, I see my "belief system" in three parts. Faith is an unshakeable belief in something that has nothing but that faith to support it as an explanation. In essence, it's believing with all my heart in something I can't possibly know to be true. Faith can cause you to do things based on a belief that has no basis. People have been known to lose everything because their faith guaranteed them a certain outcome. Some Christian Scientists have lost their lives for no reason because they chose faith over known medical procedure.

 

Hope is believing in something that might be true but acknowledging that it might not. I can hope I'll win the lottery but my knowledge of probability would keep me from rushing out and buying a yacht before the drawing.

 

Trust allows me to accept the explanation that has the most evidence to support it. This is what science means to me, accepting that an ongoing search for the best answer is much better than believing something that others hope or have faith is the Truth and never question. Trust is earned every day by being honed and supported and constantly examined, never being held as sacred and unassailable.

 

So no, I don't think religion and science have the same validity. Religion relies on the flimsiest of beliefs, faith, while science earns my trust every day with constant examination and curiosity.

I can't help but believe a religious and cognicent person wouldn't recognise science for what it is. Only an idiot would deny the reality of pasteurization, penicillin, along with the many vaccines and medical miracles science has developed. Not only that, but just think of the mechanical developements from fire and wigwams, on up through the wheel and on to rocket science.

 

Billy Graham believes he will understand God, but he may well be mistaken.

If there is no God (and it's not a suggestion you can rule out) the he has spent his whole life learning nothing.

 

If we all die then none of us is immortal so the question is meaningless if taken literally.

If it's taken figuratively, then I think that in a hundred year's time more people will know about Hawking than about Graham.

As Woody Allen said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it by not dying."

Woody had a good philosophy and it would be nice if things worked out that way. Also, we are mortal, what ever that means? But a hundred years from now kids will still be reading amusing fiction written by Mark Twain, called Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

 

Again, religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of beliefs. How exactly did the universe come to be? Science says we don't know and is comfortable with that answer. Religion is not comfortable with that answer so it simply makes one up and then believes in it.

I'm no taking sides with any religious philosophy, but isn't there several theories in science as too how the universe began?

To say that either religion or science is the only way to think, leaves a person using only half their brain. A scientist such as Steven Hawkins believes that through his knowledge, perseverance, trial and error; there is no secrets of nature that cannot eventually be unlocked by science. A religious person such as Billy Graham, regardless of which faith he espouses, believes that through his faith and belief, he will one day understand the true measure of GOD. Knowing that each of us must eventually die, who has the best shot at immortality? Scientifically, Steven Hawkins has few peers and an undeniable understanding of the cosmos. But is his rationale the ultimate reason as to why there is a universe?

 

On the other hand there’s Billy Graham, a Bible thumping evangelist who for more than six decades has been preaching the gospels . With our knowledge of a far flung universe limited mostly to that small portion in which we live, can it honestly and truthfully be said that Billy Graham in his belief is totally wrong, or is Steven Hawkins in his belief, totally right?

http://www.billygraham.org/specialsections/classics/classics_index.asp

To suggest that humans doesn't have a hand in global warming would be rediculous. But I don't believe for a minute JohnB indicated or said that. Scientists digging into earths history have found continuous tectonic upheavel having broken up Pangaea, mountain forming, the beginning of life on up through dinosaurs, to even include us humans have had a hand in climate warming and cooling. But when I think about this microcasm we live on, it's about how different it is from our neighbors. How very lucky and fortunate we are that life somehow found this safe little haven. The shame is, our modern civilizations are not so much acclimated to re-production as they are to production. As long as there is a lump of coal, a barrel of oil or a tree to be axed down as fuel or lumber, productivity will continue. It is said that Al Gore, who "supposedly" set this global warming ship in motion, and who may have also invented the internet???, doesn't know squat about the enviroment except how to quickly use it up. And yep! Housing, food, clothing and green energy will all shortly go sky high in price. Have you looked at the price of a books on "Global Warming"?

http://www.universetoday.com/35796/atmosphere-of-the-planets/.

navigator and rigney:

Would you *please* learn how to properly use quote tags? You have made it very hard to comment on what you said.

 

You are correct. There are two or three such posters who fail to see the obvious and claim facts that have been debunked. You and rigney are amongst that lot.

 

Hindsight and cherry picking are such handy devices. This is an invalid line of attack. For it to be valid, the authors would have had to have shown that:

• This one attack on the US consulate three months prior to 9/11 attack was somehow connected with the 9/11 attack. They didn't. This is guilt by association.
  
• The prior attacks on Benghazi were out of proportion to those on other installations. If the threats were merely on par with those elsewhere, this just becomes a matter of balancing resources.
  
• Shown that these out of the normal and actionable threats were known to and ignored by the highest levels. Otherwise this just becomes at worst a matter of bureaucratic bungling.

 

Bureaucratic bungling is not an impeachable offense. Many Presidents have bungled their entire way through their terms. Properly marshaling a constrained budget is not an impeachable offense. Dealing with competing cries for a limited resource is what Presidents, good and bad, have to do.

 

Once again, hindsight and cherry picking are such very nice devices. False reporting is even nicer. With regard to the first claim, your link is wrong. Secondly, the video from al-Zawhiri was vague and non-specific. al-Zawhiri has denied responsibility for the attack, and he has not been arrested. Which claim is right? This is why we have investigations rather than witch hunts. Finally, the report in The Independent is false. The administration and Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, dispute this report. It's false.

 

Also false. From http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/08/us-embassy-in-libya-sought-extension-of-essential-security-team/:

The SST was enlisted to support the reopening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically.

 

What did happen is that the Libyan team asked for additional security. They were indeed denied this request. Apparently this rejection came from a midlevel manager, and it apparently was not bubbled up the hierarchy. Should it have been? Possibly. Would the answer still have been no? Possibly. The administration was dealing with a constrained budget.

 

Oh, please. We've been over this before. Stop being dense. (Yes, I am raising the ire of the moderators and I am probably going to get a warning. So be it.) You are being extremely dense here. Read up on the huge impacts of that video across the Muslim world. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims. Here's a map of some of the protests that that video caused: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0.

 

At last? This has been the intent from day 1. It's downright disgusting, isn't it?

 

I, too, am done with this thread. I suggest it be locked until the investigations are over.

Yes, perhaps we should leave it to more cooler and qualified heads. But disgusting? Other than some very crude remarks, no. But then, I just loved this little statement of yours.

navigator and rigney:

Would you *please* learn how to properly use quote tags? You have made it very hard to comment on what you said.

Also:

I, too, am done with this thread. I suggest it be locked until the investigations are over.

I'll not question your decision to drop from the discussion, but I am offended that you are trying to make me out as the goat of this boondoggle. My initial questions were: Who, when, how and why. That was a week after the murders and no one seemed to know squat about it. Do I think this administration was and is still culp[ible? From top to bottom! But please don't include the gardner and dish washer. But when something sounds like a fart, smells like a fart and the potential perpitrator smiles and walks softly from the room, you can take bets on who blew it. Since I don't know your friend, I'm sorry he feels that way. I've known many a good soldier, but none who wouldn't accept even a wimp when in harms way and threatened.

Regardless of the answers I might give, they would be quickly negated by B.S. deeper than anything FOX can put out. But I'll try with some questions of my own.

 

D H, on 15 November 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Terrorists did. Obviously.

That's obviously not the answer you were looking for, rigney. What you appear to want is for all of us to admit that1. Prior to the attack, the Obama administration repeatedly ignored requests for improved security at the Benghazi consulate.

Were these requests for added protection not denied?

2.The CIA held prisoners at that nearby CIA annex.

Did they?

 

3.The attack was a carefully planned Al Qaeda operation.

Was it?

4.The attack was a near-continuous, seven hour long fire fight.

Was it?

 

5.The administration watched the attack live from the White House situation room.

Did they?

 

6.The CIA and DoD were told from the highest levels to stand down during the attack.

Ditto

 

7.The administration knew from the onset that this was an Al Qaeda attack.

Again, Did they know?

 

8.The administration blatantly lied about the nature of the attack for weeks after the attack.

It started to look that way.

Except for #3 (which we don't know yet), these are all lies put out by Fox News.

You see, that is what I consider a blatent accusation, making it an unfounded lie.

Correction. Those claims haven't been established as true. They remain little more fantasies in peoples heads. We may as well be trying to debunk the assertion that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.

 

If you've been reading this thread, you would have answers to these questions that are clear, concise, and supported by evidence.

 

I don't understand your question. I get my information from sources that support their claims with evidence and logic, regardless of their ideology or leaning on the political spectrum. It's not my fault that one side has a greater tendency to lie and make shit up in ways that make them less credible overall.

Please tell me then, what is this enigmatic source of your unbiases and truthful information? I only listen to the rediculous lies and bull crap republicans keep spouting.

Who did something wrong. You said our entire government. You said they knew the risk existed and did nothing other than hope it would go away.

What specifically did they do. You said they took away security despite knowledge that attacks were possible.

What information or evidence makes you think this. You said everything you've read in the past 3 months.

 

Do you realize these claims have been debunked here in this very thread more than once? Do you understand that those things fall into the set of "everything you've read since 9/12?" It's as if people are telling you that 2+2 equals 4, but you keep asserting instead that 2+2 equals pancakes. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of political discourse as a whole in the US right now.

Those claims haven't been debunked at all, just glossed over. Did our government not know the consulate had been compromised on two different occasions? Wasn't the meager protection they had, taken away from them? And knowing this, why were drones not used full time for their protection?

Tell me, from where does all of this privileged information you posess come, and of which I am definitely not privy? Certainly not from the right.

Who did something wrongly?

Our entire government got it wrong, knowing this risk existed and doing nothing about it except hope the problem would go away.

What specifically did they do?

Not a thing except take away what little security that was there and knowing the possibility of such an attack.

What precisely makes you think this (what information or evidence led you to that conclusion)?

Everything I have read and heard since that following morning of 9/12

DH, I think you may well be right. It's perfectly possible that Rigney can't actually answer the question.

If that's the case then we might as well close the thread and forget it since there's no way of knowing what the OP was about.

However, I think part of the problem is that he just has a very short attention span so he only responds to the last post.

 

So, once again, may I respectfully request that others' don't post until Rigney has clearly answered the question and told us what this whole tread is actually about.

I'm concerned that, if anyone posts something he will reply to that and ignore the fact that he hasn't yet told us what wrong he is claiming was done and by whom.

It's kind of difficult to address that.

So I'd like the next post to be from Rigney, clearly spelling out:

1 who did something wrongly?

2 What they did?

And

3 why he thinks this is so?

 

Once we have that we can comment on it- otherwise this thread isn't going anywhere.

Whether this thread goes any farther rests strictly the perogative of those involved. But I see you're still carry that mouse around in your pocket John boy. The "WE" thing you keep referring to reminds me of someone afraid of the dark or unable to sleep alone. As for your questions? Since you seem to have all of the right answers, you certainly don't need my dull input.

That's bullshit and we've been over this already three times. We don't have the funding or the manpower over there to respond to every request for added security, we just don't. You have tunnel-vision over this, assuming Benghazi is the only consulate in dicey territory that would have felt safer with a few more guards. That 16 man special team that spent most of the year assigned to Libya would probably be dead right now if they'd stayed. A friend of mine who finished his second tour of Iraq a few years back told me that, in his military opinion, it would have been stupid to send any amount of men short of a full company into a situation where you didn't know what you're facing. Sure, every grunt would've happily volunteered to defend that consulate, but their commanders are not fond of throwing lives away on dicey intel.

Tunnel vision my a--. The above is also lines of B.S. we will likely hear until this thing blows over. Tell me, If the Government, FBI, CIA and our military all knew the damned place couldn't be defended and had been probed with lesser attacked on two different occasions, why in hell were those thirty or forty counsulet people left in there? Knowing this, why had the place been left open at all? The answer might be; selling sno cones to the Eskimos. Making a case for stupidity is just plain stupid.

I keep hearing lame assed poormouth excuses justifying those murders to the point where they gag me, but I just ain't buying it no more than those congressional panels doing the investigating. And your friend? Thank him for his service, but his opinions are no more than those of us poor slobs still here in the dark.

Don't you think it started out pretty tangled? How could action have been taken before it started? And how can you continue to say this isn't a witchhunt when you're requiring the people involved to use their magic to tell the future?

 

I agree. I think it was the terrorists.

 

Don't poke fun. And while magic doesn't do it, neither does, 'well; let's see what happens after the fact". This thing had been spelled out for months, yet no action had been taken to increase protection for this counselet. Fact is, what little protection had been there was reduced to nothing. But why? Doesn't that make you want to ask questions? Being sure of this weakness, terrorist waited for an oppurtune moment to pounce on 9/11. I have no idea if you've ever been in the military, but things like this just don't happen per chance to any of the branchs. And in a case such as this, "Vigilance" is the only word.

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Refresh me! Your questioning seems to have been going on as long as this post. Give me a post # and I'll do my best to give you an answer.

 

That article is exemplary of the lying excrement that the right wing media is putting out on the Benghazi attack. There are two huge lies in this article, both in the title:

 

• Irrefutable Evidence That President Obama and Hillary Clinton Lied
  
• Not only did they lie – They Watched Them Die

 

Politicians and partisans know that one of the best ways to lie is to tell a half-truth. Yes, the White House did receive an email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack. The article however does not say that Ansar al-Sharia has denied responsibility for the attack. So which is true? Were Ansar al-Sharia members involved, or was it someone else? Untangling this mess is why an investigation is needed.

But before it ever became entangled, action should have been take, not wallowed around like a gum drop. And Yes! This happens quite frequently on the forum. But why? Each of us rationalize an issue as we see it, hopefully for nothing more or less. My honest opinion? Someone or somebodies are responsible for this debachle in Benghazi.

 

(Note: Both claims can be true. Members of a terrorist groups often act without approval of the leadership; sometimes terrorist cells act against the dicta of the leadership. Just because the leadership of Ansar al-Sharia did not plan or sanction the attack does not mean that individuals associated with the group didn't do it.)

 

Omitting this other half of the equation is essentially a lie. Even worse of a lie is claiming that this email is "irrefutable evidence" is Obama and Clinton knew that the attack was an organized terrorist attack from the onset.

 

 

Regarding the second part of the title, "they watched them die". The article doesn't discuss this at all. This is a bald assertion in the title of the article that is never bolstered by the body of the article. It's a lie.

Why don't you answer the questions?

What questions? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have, so to speak, a dog in this fight because I'm a member of this discussion forum.

 

Wouldn't you find it easier to just answer the questions, rather than ranting bout me being English?

 

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

Ranting about you being English? Perish the thought! Some of my best friends, including the most removed of my relatives are, or were English. Wish I had known Churchill a bit better. I believe he and I smoked the same brand of cigars at one time.

For one thing, you and navigator keep harping on the administration lying about protests over the anti-Islamic video being part of the attack. I definitely think this was a mistake on their part, but only because the administration did what you and navigator are so proud of doing: they connected the dots without knowing all the facts. Other embassies were having violent protests over the video so they connected the dots and released that story. And they ended up being wrong.

 

navigator's stance requires that the video has to be obscure, otherwise it's not a dot he can connect, so he keeps arguing for that, even though others have shown that the video sparked protests in 20 countries that killed 49 people, a whole order of magnitude greater than we lost in Benghazi. If that video is obscure, what does that make the attack on our embassy?

 

You both have put forward evidence that has then been refuted. I look over this monster of a thread and I see the same things being repeated, and repeatedly refuted, and yet you wait a while and then repeat them again. It really has nothing to do with right wing/left wing, it's all about facts vs suppositions.

 

You've been asking all along if there was something that could have been done to prevent the attack on our embassy, and that's always been a good question, but it's plain to see that you simply haven't liked any of the answers given. You seem to prefer unsubstantiated supposition ("they watched the attack happening real time and did NOTHING!") rather than accept the facts as they are revealed (the drone arrived after the main assault was over).

 

I've appreciated the candid and objective input from D H, someone I know is definitely not a partisan liberal, and probably wouldn't consider himself to be even left-leaning. He is just being smart and objective, an intellectual person who knows that connecting the dots is just a justification for jumping to conclusions.

I don't quite relate to the smart and objective part of your comment Phi but I get a lot of heat for my own views and precption on many issues. My prowess is no where near the caliber of intellect I witness on the forum. But to refer to someone as dense, stupid, lame or loony for their interpretation of a matter, only limits my respect for them to that of being an educated idiot. At the same time it intensifies my resolve to treat them as such. Many if not most of my statements are unrehersed when made and come primarily from what I have either read or heard pertaining to a subject. Only when I get pissed at crap someone puts out as gospal, expecting me to believe, do I resort to unflattering remarks. As for the navigator? Other than this post I've not had the pleasure But he is very articulate and quite knowledgeable of the unrelenting depths of how rhetoric works. I'm very glad he's around to help keep the wolves away.

 

That website claims that Obama and Hillary lied.

Exactly what did they say which they knew to be untrue?

Or is this just another of your vague allegations?

 

(It's impossible to tell from the site since the video of them has been removed)

Vague allegation!? You saw exactly what I did. And by the way John, everything you write is something of an accusation. Can I validate their supposed finding? No way! But yes, I wonder why the following video was removed. I also wonder at your bitterness, being such an upright and dignified English gentleman as you are? But then, chances are, you don't even have a dog in this fight.

I think what makes you look like a loony (right or left) is making vague assertions and refusing to clarify what you meant and why.

perhaps you would like to set that straight now. You may remember that I asked this a few times before.

 

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

I see, and you are looking at irrefutabvle conversational evidence such as this, to trip up a conservative long enough to call them a loony?

iNow, on 24 November 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

We spend so much time going around and around rebutting clear bullshit like this that nut jobs simply refuse to drop that we never get to focus on the things that matter and could actually improve our world.

Why bother with the economy, or jobs, or climate, or infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or ad infinitum when we could instead spend 3 months arguing with idiots about non-issues and manufactured hysterias?

And then, I suppose this being put out by some right wing conservative looney nuts, make it untrue?

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/24/they-knew-they-lied-p-e-r-i-o-d-irrefutable-evidence-that-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-lied/