XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Zepp"  wrote in message news:kmur9l$869$9@dont-email.me...   
   > On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:10:36 -0400, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Zepp"  wrote in message   
   >> news:kmtru0$au6$12@dont-email.me...   
   >>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:04:49 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Zepp  wrote in news:kmtnme$au6$7@dont-email.me:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:15:31 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Zepp  wrote in news:kms9fk$s25$16@dont-email.me:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:55:03 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Zepp  wrote in news:kms653$s25$11@dont-email.me:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:48:35 -0800, linuxgal wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> deep wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Somebody working for Obama make a bad error in judgement an you   
   >>>>>> want   
   >>>>>>>> to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> crucify Obama for FOUR American deaths.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> No, I want to crucify Obama for covering up an al-Qaeda attack   
   >>>>>>>>>> by running a narrative it was just a protest in response to a   
   >>>>>>>>>> YouTube   
   >>>>>>>> video   
   >>>>>>>>>> because it was the eve of the election and he was running as the   
   >>>> guy   
   >>>>>>>> who   
   >>>>>>>>>> killed bin Laden.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I'm sure you want to crucify him, but it's pretty hard to claim a   
   >>>>>> cover   
   >>>>>>>>> up when the NEXT DAY he's talking about it being an act of   
   >>>>>>>>> terror.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, he didn't.  He was talking about terror in general.  Listen   
   >>>>>>>> carefully to that video of him in the Rose Garden.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Given that nobody knew exactly who was behind the attacks, how   
   >>>> specific   
   >>>>>>> could he get?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You missed the point.  His comment about terror attacks was about   
   >>>>>> them in general, not Benghazi.  A week later he was still claiming   
   >>>>>> that Benghazi was the result of the video.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> He was talking about Benghazi.  Unless there were some OTHER attacks   
   >>>>> of which we are unaware...?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Not when he used the term "terrorism" or "terrorist attack".  As I   
   >>>> said listen closely to the audio.   
   >>>   
   >>> So where there a whole bunch of other attacks in the previous 24 hours?   
   >>> You're picking nits and you know it.   
   >>   
   >> How do you know he was only talking about the last 24 hours?   
   >   
   > What else would he have been talking about?  You're just desperate now.   
      
   So you're admitting that you are ASSUMING he was talking about Benghazi.   
      
   Now, was he actually talking about Benghazi?   
      
   Can you show where in his speech he makes it clear that he is specifically   
   talking about that event rather than some vague generalities?   
      
      
   >> Remember, you're talking about a lawyer here who is trained to mislead   
   >> you by saying things that sound like what you want to hear but actually   
   >> don't say what you assume they do.   
   >   
   > I don't care what you do for a living, sport.   
      
   Were you talking about me, or about Obama?   
      
   ...or perhaps you simply are attempting to deny the truth of what I'm   
   pointing out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)