Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit Will Revisit "Innocence of Muslims" Takedown Order
The Associated Press, as carried by ABC News, reports that "An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena will hear arguments Monday by Google, which owns YouTube, disputing the court's decision to remove Innocence of Muslims from the popular video sharing service." At the heart of the earlier take-down order, which was the result of a 2-1 split from a 3-judge panel, is the assertion of copyright by actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the film, but in a role considerably different from the one she thought she was playing.
Google is supported in its appeal by an unusual alliance that includes filmmakers, Internet rivals such as Yahoo and prominent news media companies such as The New York Times that don't want the court to infringe on First Amendment rights. Garcia has support from the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians. If the court upholds the smaller panel's ruling, YouTube and other Internet companies could face takedown notices from others in minor video roles.
"innocence of muslims" really?
what an awkward for this to come up as people are held hostage by extremist muslims
Yes I know, not all muslims are like that, religion of peace, vocal minority, blah blah blah
You can defend a bear all you want, it's still gonna rip your face off
And get the job done! For real!
The title is sarcastic. According to Wikipedia, the film is anti-muslim.
EFF and prior legal precedent say that there is no established right of copyright to actors in films... regardless of whether they appear there voluntarily or not.
The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.
"innocence of muslims" really?
what an awkward for this to come up as people are held hostage by extremist muslims
Yes I know, not all muslims are like that, religion of peace, vocal minority, blah blah blah
You can defend a bear all you want, it's still gonna rip your face off
Then you will probably be happy to learn that the video is actually anti-Islamic.
We are losing time with this and going back and forth, wasting our tax dollars, because the media is shitting in their pants this will open a precedent for a mere peasant that was part of a film to interfere with their fiefdom.
Creationist video Expelled. And Shark Week programs.
What do these have in common? Both have used deception to get expert interviews, then used leading questions and misleading editing to misrepresent what those experts said.
Oops you did it again, you're breaking my 'net. .. .(something, something, something). .. not so innocent.
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
In the Benghazi incident only three Americans died
The 9/11 event, over 3,000 perished
What is happening in Sydney Australia can happen in USA, do you understand that ??
I only have to point at Galicula a movie with big name actors not knowing that there would be porn in that movie as well.
And for anyone who doesn't remember, this was the film that Obama blamed the Benghazi attacks on. Despite later admitting that, no, oops, that wasn't what caused the attacks at all.
Of course we still don't know exactly what happened with Benghazi since while the Democrats are more than willing to put CIA operations at risk to insult the Bush administration, they sure as hell aren't willing to let anyone know what happened in Benghazi. Maybe in 2022 we'll finally get a Senate report on the truth about Benghazi.
A person who has not commited a crime is innocent.
A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise
That person's beliefs, religious or otherwise are in and of itself not criminal. It is what that person does with those beliefs that makes all the difference.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Why was this question censored with mod points? No matter being wrong, is a very valid concern. You people suck
These days wikipedia is as truth worthy as "world weekly news."
Om, nomnomnom...
What country are you referring to?
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
who cares anymore? The furor has died down and nobody cares. It was an election year ploy, just like the so-called "Ground Zero mosque." (It's open and nobody has a problem with it)
And from what magical website do you get your information where there is no bias and all the references are perfect?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
You mean a report that you agree with. You already know what you wanted to say. Don't worry I'm sure they'll be a few more.
That person's beliefs, religious or otherwise are in and of itself not criminal.
I don't know, but there may be a few convicted pedophiles who disagree with you as to beliefs not being criminal.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise"
Unless it's a tax or a drug case.
"Oops"?
The attack happened on Sept 11th just before the 2012 election.
You don't really think it was an accident that they blamed some film-maker and threw him in jail to deflect responsibility from themselves, do you?
At least in my country, someone who appears in media (any form, but particularly film/video) has the right to object if their performance is distorted, especially in a way that harms them. For example, if an actor signs up to portray a Nazi drug dealer, then they cannot object if their performance portrays a Nazi drug dealer. On the other hand, if they signed up to portray a social worker helping addicts, then they have the right to object if the final cut of the film portrays them as a Nazi drug dealer.
That right (I believe it is called a "moral right", not to confused with any American group) supervenes over the director's and producer's "freedom of speech".
cant call you anything cause youre too cowardly to post under your own profile.
which is ultimately the point about most bigots: theyre just cowards.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
what an awkward for this to come up as america is involved in more oppression, incarceration and war within its borders and across the globe than any other nation since WW2
America has done bad things, no doubt. But I hardly think it compares to regimes like Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, pretty much any regime in Kosovo, Somalia, etc.
The U.S. generally only plays harsh when countries don't play ball (don't sell it oil, support the USSR/Russia over the U.S., etc.). And it has a nasty history of looking the other way when friendly oppressive regimes serve its economic interests (as in Chile, Saudi Arabia, etc.). But life under direct U.S. rule is far from "oppressive." And even in its economic interests, the U.S. will only look the other way for so long if a friendly dictator becomes openly oppressive.
And all of this hardly makes the U.S. exceptional. Pretty much every developed country does similar scummy things in its own economic and political interests. The U.S. is only exceptional in the reach of its economic and military power. Its methodology and philosophy is pretty unexceptional. In fact, U.S. colonialism is pretty light-handed compared with the historical colonialism of other European countries. The U.S. gives its conquered territories at least some autonomy. Compare that the British and French empires.
And if you want to talk heavy-handed, take a look at Israel sometime. The U.S. is downright sweet and cuddly compared to them. When the U.S. wants to stop your nuclear weapons program, they might send a computer virus and some economic sanctions after you. Israel just goes right to blowing up your nuclear scientists with car bombs.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Multiple congressional reports, all but one led by the GOP, and they all say the same thing: There is no scandal. The White House told the truth. Fox is lying.
But hey, the facts are known about Whitewater too, but that hasnt stopped you idiots from continuing to push that fake scandal for over 20 years either.
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
By your definition, islam is anti-islamic. No event in the movie are contested by muslim. No scenes claimed to misrepresent Islam. Muslim are angry at the movie simply because it show the prophet. Nobody is allowed to play, draw, paint or portrait in any form the prophet of Islam, especially not a infidel pig.
I watched the movie severals time (it more like a trailer really) and I found nothing offensive. It look like a cheap Christian nativity movie. In the movie Mohammed is show to be a warrior and a pedophile. But these are historical facts that muslim do not contest. These facts are only offensive to political correctness obsessed non-muslim that believe all religion are about peace, tolerance and more or less all the same. Not all religion are the same and Islam happen to be about war, murder and the raping of little girls. If you don't believe it, read the fucking quran and see it for yourself.
I have a problem with any mosque on US soil, Canadian soil, western soil at all -- and so should anyone who has ever served in the military and is not a left-leaning pacifist "humans first" faggot.
Islam is a sham. It always has been. muslims want to build their mosques in our western countries but we are NOT ALLOWED to build mosques and synagogues in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, or any number of other places. That's really fair, isn't it. Religion of peace and equality, my arse...
The west is politically correct and it's going to come back and bite us in the ass. We don't want anyone getting elected to congress who answers to the false allah and his false prophet. Sadly, the EU looks to be far gone in this regard. At least Russia sees the muslims for what they are -- a blight on the landscape with bad intentions for everyone but themselves. Their goal is a worldwide caliphate and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to actually see this. Religion of peace my arse...
LOL @ MediaMatters propaganda.
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
From ABC: "The "talking points" memo on what the Obama administration should tell the public was the basis for statements made by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack to explain what happened.
Rice insisted the attack emanated from a protest over an anti-Islam video produced in America that turned violent and that terrorism was not involved. The White House has since acknowledged the assault was a preplanned terror attack and no protest happened."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Can't you do empathy? Peoples of these 'oppressive' regime defend their the same way you do. They believe their situation is not that bad compared the the real bad one. In the case of a comrade of the USSR, he see the fascist american and european as the oppressed ones. This is why there are wars, because everybody think they are right and everyone is evil. You are part of the problem.
As for your comment about Israel; Everybody know it is a terrorist state that should not be allowed to exist. Just like all the other theocracy state with disregard on the actuals religion they force on peoples. eg; Israel in the case of Judaism, Iran for Islam and Tibet for their version of 'Buddhism'.
no, it is not anti-muslim. it is anti-islam. there is a big difference. You aren't "born" a "muslim" the same way you are born straight/gay or white/brown. Islam is a belief system, one that you have to conscientiously adhere to. It is fair to criticize a belief system, or the actions of people like Mohammed. It is not fair to criticize someone for being born gay.
I am a vegetarian. What if I decide I am offended by meat by advertised?
Sounds crazy, but it really is the same thing. People decide what will offend.
Youtube commentator Pat Condell recently made a great video on the subject.
Choosing to be offended
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sZag4LUNw&list=UUWOkEnBl5TO4SCLfSlosjgg
I don't know. Are there any jailed for saying that adults should be able to have sexual relations with children?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I have trouble telling the difference between fundamentalist Muslim and fundamentalist Christian. Especially when there are fundamentalist Christians who are openly advocating the murder of all homosexuals by X-Mas.
"A person who is accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven otherwise"
Unless it's a tax or a drug case.
Or you're applying for a job.
Where until you prove otherwise, you're a drug-addicted illegal immigrant.
Can't you do empathy?
Can't you recognize that there are DEGREES of oppressiveness? Just because everyone oppresses to some degree doesn't mean the U.S. is just as bad as Cambodia under Pol Pot.
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.
Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate...
The relevant part, from the summary, is here:
In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The Intelligence Community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There are degrees of oppressiveness, but neither you or I are able to judge them because we are inside these society. You are an engaged actor, not the neutral observer you pretend to be from over your arrogant high horses.
Only history will tell how the US imprisonment system, the torture of prisoner, the hasty execution or 'perp' by police officer, the legal robbery by civil forfeiture, the stasi-style 3 letter alphabet soup police, and all the other various crime committed abroad will be remembered. Maybe the future generations will see that as the worst of humanity, maybe they will think it is no big deal. I do not know but I don't think it is fair to jump to conclusion and say we are SOOO much better then everyone else.
Actually, this movie was blamed for anti-Western riots that took place in several Muslim countries. But in fact, its release happened to coincide w/ the 'Arab Spring' uprisings in the Arab empire.
However, the inane aspect about it is that while Republicans blamed Obama for what happened in Benghazi, fact remains that their position on Libya/Qadaffi was no different from the Democrats. If anything, it was Obama who was showing sense dragging his feet in supporting the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrein and other places. And Republicans - from McCain to Hannity all clamoring for Obama to support the anti-Qadaffi uprising in Libya. Obama would have done well to follow his initial instincts and stay completely out of it.
I'm no fan of Qadaffi, but the Qadaffi who Reagan bombed in 1982 was completely different from the Qadaffi post the Iraq war. In fact, one of the few successes of the Iraq war was that Qadaffi decided to discontinue his chemical/biological weapons programs, and repair relations w/ the West. In other words, the Qadaffi who was lynched in that uprising was no longer a firebreathing hater of the West, or a troublemaker throughout Africa. The rebels, on the other hand, had links to the various Muslim Brotherhood movements in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and were not worth supporting, since their rise to power was gonna mean the emergence of an Islamic regime in Tripoli, similar to ISIS. However, the cretins throughout Western capitals and spanning both Left wing and Right wing parties decided that it was worth supporting them in the name of 'democracy'. Well, we saw how long that lasted, particularly in Egypt.
Truth is, and this comes to the heart of that otherwise badly made movie, that Muslim countries cannot stay democratic, once the power is directly given to the people. Democracy means political, religious and other pluralism - in other words, acceptance and tolerance for political, religious and other views that fly against the mainstream. But Islam is not a pluralistic religion that tolerates other religions, and extending that concept, Islamic sects ain't pluralistic either. That's why you have Shias persecuting Sunnis (in Iran, Syria & Iraq), Sunnis persecuting Shias (in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, ISIS controlled Syria/Iraq, Afghanistan and so on), Sunnis persecuting Ahmadiyas (in Indonesia & Pakistan), on top of your usual Muslims persecuting non-Muslims in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries. Even if the governments in question are democratic, persecution happens, since it's the will of the majority community in each of these countries - that follows a tradition set by Mohammed himself.
As a result, the countries that don't have a major unrest are countries that have anti-Islamic dictatorships @ the top, that keep their Muslim populations hinged. Countries like the ex-Soviet Stans, Algeria, Turkey (before the current Erdogan regime), and Tunisia (before Ben Ali was toppled). Or kingdoms that keep their populations quiet, like Jordan or Oman. Other than that, all the Muslim countries that have gone democratic have also seen Islamic regimes come to power - like Hamas. But the good thing, at least in Syria, is that w/ a full blown civil war going on, you have one group of our enemies - ISIS - fighting the others - Syria, Iran and yes, even Iraq.
The right solution to Benghazi at the time, had anyone in diplomatic circles had a clue, would have been to pull US diplomats & journalists out of all these Arab countries and watch their civil wars from a distance. No handwringing over the rights of people, or anything like that. Just watch them do what they excel at doing - rioting. And keep all Western non-Muslim citizens out of there, warning them that they'd be responsible for their own security if they go despite these warnings and anything bad happens to them - just like Lara Logan.
. It is not fair to criticize someone for being born gay.
Except, there is NO proof that anyone has ever been "born gay". Look deep into your past skywalker, for there lies the answer where your affliction began
That's a purely semantic distinction, without a difference. If nobody in the world followed Islam i.e. there were no Muslims, then nobody would bother about what's in the Qur'an, Hadiths and other Islamic theological works. Just like nobody bothers about what was in David Koresh's teachings, or what the Heavensgate cult taught. Reason Islam is something we worry about is that there are now close to 2B Muslims worldwide. Fact is that whether we're willing to admit it or not, we are threatened by Muslims. Islam is the reason we are threatened - because Muslims use their piety, which mandates Jihad against Infidels, as a reason to undermine Western Society. If Heavensgate or other cults had 2B strong adherents, you bet we'd be shitting bricks over them.
There is a very good reason to post anonymously in cases like this. It being Muslim vindictiveness. Remember when Molly Norris, under her own name, opened a Facebook competition called 'Everybody draw Mohammed day'? That resulted in her getting death threats and having to go underground. And no, she wasn't living in Gaza or Islamabad or Qum or Dhahran, she was living in Seattle. When Muslims can threaten us in our own countries, in our own homes, it makes sense to post anonymously. It's easy for Muslim lovers like yourself to post under your own name, since no one will threaten you or come after you for supporting them.
Please, being a drug-addicted illegal immigrant is practically a job requirement these days.
Just ask the President.
Being killed because you wear glasses, whether or not you are educated, because glasses are considered to be the mark of the educated elite is a degree of oppression that the US does not have and hopefully never will. That is just one thing that the Khmer Rouge did.
Yes, there are problems here, but living in Cambodia was a nightmare of the worst sort. They depopulated every city in the country, sent them all off to the country to work on insufficient nutrition, and basically killed anyone who didn't fit their perfect ideal of the agrarian Khmer.
There isn't even a comparison. The only argument that you might have is that you don't want this country to become like the Killing Fields, but I have a considerable amount of doubt in anyone who says that who can't even tell the difference between murderous genocide and some civil liberties being infringed that you are free to talk about and protest about without being murdered or sent to a forced labor death camp.
We *are* SOOO much better than those places. Not by right of birth, but by the fact that people here fight to keep it that way. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to go to those places and experience life there as an actual "citizen" of such a place, not simply a tourist. There the problems aren't angst over racial profiling. Its fear of genocide, slavery, rampant corruption, and attendant complete hopelessness.
We should not rest on our laurels. We have to keep fighting to keep the US a country worth living in. The fact that we are actually a better place to live does not mean it will continue to be that way without effort. Every day we are assaulted by things that will drag us in the wrong direction that need to be fought. We are not better because we are born that way, we're better because we work to be better. As soon as we stop, we will actually be no better.
And to make your point, you cite a highly partisan organization known for its well funded hatchet jobs?
The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. Pure incompetence, of course, but nothing they could do about it once the attack started.
That's what the Democrat-led reports are concluding. It's all about trying for maximum cover for Hillary, period.
And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the sustained, demonstrated days of lying the White House did after the event, in a transparently lame, embarrassing attempt to prevent their narrative (in the days before an election) about Islamist terrorists being "on the run" from being seen as pure BS. Instead, they tried to explain away the death of a left-for-dead ambassador as the result of a cheesy video posted on YouTube. That is the Big Lie. Of course it all fell apart when it became evident that not even an hour had passed after the attacks before senior intelligence people were in the White House telling Obama exactly what happened (heavily armed, organized terrorists conducting a well planned attack). But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I doubt anybody going before a parole board is going to be released if they made such statement public. It is also likely to get you put on a short list for investigators as soon as there is a reported crime of pedophilia.
As long as it does not violated political correctness.
yes, those with mod points do suck. I've been refusing to mod for almost 15 years now, due to the suckage. The points were useless if all I was able to do was to undo a little bit of the damage by the abject retards who use every mod point as "I agree" or "I disagree".
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Ahmed Abu Khattala, the captured mastermind behind Benghazi, explicitly stated that the Benghazi attacks were a response to the Innocence of Muslims film
Before this admission, we didn't know who, or what the motivations were behind Benghazi. This film sparked protests worldwide at the same time period the attacks occurred so an easy conclusion to make was that they were somehow connected, this is faulty reasoning, but it turned out to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
The White House told the truth
Oh, really??
Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.
Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate... The relevant part, from the summary, is here: In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The Intelligence Community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.
Oh, right, of course: CANNOT be the fault of the White House. It's "somebody else's fault". We can blame this one on Bush, too, right?
So, we can say they told "the truth", because, of course, the truth is fungible. It doesn't matter if it was completely wrong, or inaccurate, or that they kept promoting the false narrative even after the intelligence reports were corrected, only that we deflect blame before the elections!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
And if you believe that... I'll buy us all a round of drinks with the $2500 I'm going to save on my insurance... after the visit to my Dr that I won't lose on the plan I can keep.
Hint: How do you know someone in the Administration is lying? A Democrat is talking.
Yeah, and Agenda 21 is using Common Core to sneak homosexual ISIS soldiers across the Mexican-US border so they can have butt sex with our kids and give them butt Ebola.
Moron.
" But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting."
What you describe isn't the first time by a long shot. It has happened in practically every presidency(republican and democrat) for a minimum of decades if not centuries. We just didn't have the capacity or interest to catch them at it. That's assuming your supposition is correct and it's not just political theater(damage control) or miscommunications(mistakes). Nothing the Obama administration has done has been original or remarkable. The president has acted more as a reactionary administrator than a seat of your pants leader.
Nothing the Obama administration has done has been original or remarkable.
Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by comparison.
It's Obama's own finger-wagging lecturing prior to holding office to which it makes sense to hold up his own behavior. That wasn't him being surprised by the realities of office (though, clearly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into, having never run anything in his life, before hand), this was him simply realizing that there was no need to keep up the facade once in office.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Anything that calls itself an encyclopedia for the masses should aim as much to maintain a NPV. The problem is, NPV is long since dead especially with groups like "project feminism" injecting their political bias into everything from STEM to gaming.
Om, nomnomnom...
I often try to undo the damage, but it is useless, too many retards.
posting facts is not a troll.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Propoganda?
It's a matter of public record.
It's not like its hard to research.
You dont agree with their conclusions? Then prove it.
Your USA TOday link doesnt prove or disprove anything.
In fact it matches and corroborates what I just posted.
If you had bothered at all read the links to the reports or evenw hat I posted you would have seen that even the Congress, who doesnt want to, believes the WH based its initial statements on the CIA intelligence provided to them.
That's the point: EVEN THE GOP, WHO WANTED TO FIND SOMETHING, WHO TRIED TO FIND SOMETHING, FOUND NOTHING, 6 TIMES IN A ROW.
If they had found anything they would have been crowing from the rooftops.
You dont have a leg to stand on.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What I posted are the current facts, not trolls.
The fools who got mod points yesterday may want to mod it to oblivion, but that is simply because they dont like what they have heard.
Which is too bad.
The AC said "we dont know anything about Benghazi, and that is a LIE.
The AC is not intersting, nor insightful.
Nor does he apparently know the first thing about Benghazi:
There have been 6 congressional investigations so far, as well at outside review.
6 times the GOP has been forced to issue reports that conclude that the White House did not do anything, and the very notion of any sort of benghazi scandal is completely manufactured and perpetuated only by certain politicians and Fox News without any basis in fact.
If the GOP had found anything they would be crowing from the rooftops, but they arent, because they cant.
You can try to hide it by modding it down,
by putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalala,
but that doesnt change the facts: that even the GOP led investigations who WANT to find a scandal havent been able to.
You're faced with 3 options:
-admit your GOP leaders doing the investigations, with access to top secret documents, are incompetent
-admit the White House really did do nothing
-claim the GOP investigators are part of the conspiracy, like Fox has.
The amount doublethink required is amusing:
-wingnuts seem to believe that this "corrupt incompetent adminstration" is strangely really competent at coverups and has the ability to even get the GOP to go along with it.
-4 people died at Benghazi, therefore impeach the President for treason.....while ignoring the 93 that died similarly under Bush.
-when Obama says somethng wrong based on CIA intelligence its all his fault. But when Bush ignored CIA intelligence and builds fall down, and invades another country based while ignoring CIA intelligence...he carries no blame whatsoever.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
6 GOP led investigations in a row believe it.
And they have access to all the classified docs,
as well as the public record.
You think theyre wrong?
Based on what?
Your partisanship isnt a valid reason.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Stop spouting nonsensical BS, it only reveals your stupidity and unwillingness to face facts:
-There have been 6 congressional investigations so far, as well at outside review.
-6 times the GOP has been forced to issue reports that conclude that the White House did not do anything, and the very notion of any sort of benghazi scandal is completely manufactured and perpetuated only by certain politicians and Fox News without any basis in fact.
If the GOP had found anything they would be crowing from the rooftops, but they arent, because they cant.
So do you accept 6 GOP led investigations or not?
If not, why not? What basis, what special intel do you have that they dont?
You can try to ignore it by putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalala,
but that doesnt change the facts: that even the GOP led investigations who WANT to find a scandal havent been able to.
You're faced with 3 options:
-admit the White House really did do nothing
-admit your GOP leaders doing the investigations, with access to top secret documents, are incompetent
-claim the GOP investigators are part of the conspiracy, like Fox has.
Just rmember the amount doublethink required believe the latter two:
-that this "corrupt incompetent adminstration" is strangely really competent at coverups and has the ability to even get the GOP to go along with it.
-4 people died at Benghazi, therefore impeach the President for treason.....while ignoring the 93 that died similarly under Bush.
-when Obama says somethng wrong based on CIA intelligence its all his fault. But when Bush ignored CIA intelligence and builds fall down, and invades another country based while ignoring CIA intelligence...he carries no blame whatsoever.
Again: you are a crackpot and nothing but a professional troll with othing factual or logical to say.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So the relevence or accuracy of facts changes based on who said them?
Sorry but no, it doesnt work like that.
And those investigations were led by the GOP.
And they disagreed, officially, and publicly, with everything you just said.
6 times in a row.
You quite simply dont know what youre talking about.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
He specifically mentioned Whitewater and Benghazi.
Therefore it is very much NOT offtopic.
Stupid mods.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The only assertion I am making is that "the White House" did NOT tell the truth. That's backed up by the report and the USA Today link. Finding "nothing" doesn't really mean anything, other than we had Mike Morell to take the fall (and get a cushy high-paying gig, spreading propaganda via CBS, plus an "honorary" position on one of the administration's "advisory" boards).
The assertion that "it was bad intelligence" was false (this is, in fact, a lie). Mike Morell testified that he got reports from the CIA describing exactly what had happened, and scratched out everything that indicated Al Queida involvement or an orchestrated terrorist attack. We will never know who was involved in faking up the narrative, because Morell was the fall guy for the whole thing.
Will you acknowledge the facts or continue to defend the corrupt administration as "truthful" and "good" and "above reproach"? Most transparent administration ever?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I think you're saying something reasonable here about the warmongers that have been running the country for at least 20 years, and the way they orchestrate a bunch of theatrics to look like opposition when something goes wrong, as if there is anyone in power that's actually opposed to all the killing of brown people and promoting warfare.
Unfortunately, it's really difficult to understand you with Obama's cock so far down your throat.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Radical Muslims want to chop of your head.
Moderate Muslims want Radical Muslims to chop of your head.
Cause everyone bring rocket launchers to spontaneous protests, right?
Maybe the future generations will see that as the worst of humanity, maybe they will think it is no big deal. I do not know but I don't think it is fair to jump to conclusion and say we are SOOO much better then everyone else.
Historically speaking, it's actually a pretty good conclusion.
I don't think it is fair for you to be posting about topics that you clearly know SOOOO much less about than the average intelligent, well-read, high school student with an interest in history.
Your homework is to read at least 10 history books over the next year, on different periods of human history, and different regions of the world. Please pick different authors for each book. Come back to Slashdot when you are prepared to discuss things intelligently, without jumping to conclusions about something you don't understand.
And here we have an example of the most classless form of concession: the insult. You could've just said "Ok, I'm wrong; I accept that seven different GOP-led investigations have uncovered nothing untoward" and spared yourself from looking like an idiot. But then, this is /., where every sixth comment is someone looking like an idiot while screaming they aren't.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
OK, fine, you're not a troll, you're just a partisan asshat.
We the people still don't know what happened in Benghazi. All we know is that the administration lied about it and no one has managed to leak the truth. Yet.
And here we have an example of the most classless form of concession: the insult. You could've just said "Ok, I'm wrong; I accept that seven different GOP-led investigations have uncovered nothing untoward"
Haha. Nice try, jackass. Total strawman, because I never made any assertion about anything, other than the WH narrative was false, and known false. Whether that is "untoward" or not is is an exercise left to those who would interpret the facts. The OP's rant was simply a distraction from his unwillingness to acknowledge facts. Your misguided attack is nothing but a way to distract yourself from uncomfortable truths about your own worldview.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Do you feel your argument is more credible when you insult people who disagree with you?
Of course! You didn't make any assertions -- other than the one you just admitted making. So my refutation of it is a TOTAL straw man because you never said the White House narrative was false. Wait...
Can you say "projection"??
Either that or, you know, trying to correct someone who is factually incorrect. But yannow what? If you completely ignore Occam's Razor and that fact that you're completely wrong and you might just have a case...
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Thought and action are to different things. Speaking one's mind is acting on one's thoughts, just as much as otherwise acting out on one's thoughts and urges would be. From there on one enters the big grey area where a legislator could potentially infringe upon one's basic freedoms. Potentially being the operative word here. But the opposite is true as well - by speaking one's mind one could potentially infringe upon the basic freedoms of others as well. One's own freedom ends where those of others begin and vice versa.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.