(V): If it were Bush, you'd see plenty.

Artful Dodger: Nahhhhhh, the GOP has a lot of supporters, if it were Bush and the accusations turned out to be false... They would be false.

eg McCain and the question whether he was a natural born... .. No question.. he was. Even 'if' he wasn't born on 'US' territory he was born to US parents.

(V): No one is saying much about Fast and Furious either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, having trouble finding what you don't want to see? That's odd, I had no trouble finding lodes of information about it. Have you tried using a search engine like, oh say, maybe "Google"? Or how about "Bing"? I hear that's a good one too.

It seems the only thing Obama can't hide from (with or without the help from his buddies in the press) will be the Benghazi story. He won't be about to lie his way around that one. Too much information has already gotten out contradicting the video excuse, resulting in his apology to the terrorists for offending them... the same terrorists who killed four of our people on embassy property. BTW, any US embassy is considered to be US domain... so in effect it's same as if the attack took place on US soil.

I don't know if the American citizen who ended up in jail because of Obama lying is out yet or not, but I'll bet his lawyers are waiting to see what Congress will do about this. On top of everthing else, allowing people to die unnecessarily, and then lie about it, the president may have to account for being responsible for causing a US citizen to be falsely charged and thrown into jail.

Remember the cartoonist who is still in hiding because he drew an "offensive" cartoon? He wasn't thrown in jail or turned over to Islamic terrorists, was he? No, he was and still is being hidden and protected from them.

But what does Obama do? He falsely charges a guy who made an "offensive" youtube video with being responsible for an expected and planned attack on 9/11, and as a result the guy gets taken from his home in the middle of the night and tossed into jail.

Iamon lyme: Correction: Obama falsely accused him, not charged him. But he WAS charged and arrested as a result of that accusation. A false accusation leading to a criminal charge and arrest is itself a crime.

But as we saw with Bill Clinton, it's not always easy to go after the top dog... Clinton got away with doing and saying things anyone else would have gone to jail for doing (or saying). Lying before a grand jury, insider trading (cattle futures payed off handsomely for those in the know)... too many misdeeds for me to get into, but I guess the point here is as Mel Brooks once said... "It's good to be the king."

Iamon lyme: I think it's lame that we still sack people over what is a domestic matter. In normal life it don't matter.

eg.. if the Aliens landed and we had just one person capable of interpreting what they were saying.... would he be sacked if he's messing about with his assistant?

Iamon lyme: The terrorists? Or the others that were there??

"On top of everthing else, allowing people to die unnecessarily, and then lie about it, the president may have to account for being responsible for causing a US citizen to be falsely charged and thrown into jail."

.... You've got Islamic (I mean that in a loose sense, as if they followed their book by the letter regarding certain passages as some so called Christians have not followed their book by the letter) clerics inciting violence being charged here in the UK... we've just extradited one to your country.

Such videos as that guy made are not winning hearts and minds. They put our troops and civilians at risk. They help recruit more psychos to the terrorist cause.

I wouldn't exactly shake his hand because of that.. in fact, I'd give him a good clout round the back of the head... as for those who sponsored him.. Stocks at an State side army base.

... maybe then the soldiers throwing rotten fruit and veg at them will finally get the message across, that they don't need American citizens helping the terrorist leaders get more volunteers.

... You do accept that this is true regardless of other events?

(V): [ ... You do accept that this is true regardless of other events? ]

I might (or might not) if I could understand half of what you say. Unless or until you are able to make yourself clear I'll be responding only to what I think you might be saying.

~ Islamic clerics in UK have been charged (in custody?) with inciting violence. Okay...

~ One was extradited to my country. I don't doubt that.

~ You make reference to Christians and comparing them with Islamists (?) as though it is somehow relevant... are we getting ready to delve yet again into the past, to find some historical perspective you believe may shore up your point?

Here you said: "Such videos as that guy made are not winning hearts and minds."

It isn't his job to "win hearts and minds". Is it YOUR job at this board to "win hearts and minds"? Do you think someone could charge you with a crime, and have you tossed into jail for saying anything here? I doubt it. But who knows? Fencer might show up with an armed detail of soldiers and capture you in the middle of the night.

The youtube video guy is a private citizen, who was spouting off on youtube. That is all he is, and all he did... if anyone (not just the president) wanted to find an offensive video he could use to claim is the cause of a violent attack, how difficult could that be? The president didn't just tell a lie, he told a stupid lie. He wasn't the only one sitting in the situation room. He was surrounded by people who may have been advising him, but everyone was waiting for him to make some kind of decision... because it was HIS decision to make.

~ "They put our troops and civilians at risk. They help recruit more psychos to the terrorist cause."

A youtube video can do all that? Wow... so, the president serves you up a glass of koolaid and you don't hesitate to drink from it. It's remarkable what some people are willing to believe.

Do you believe backing down to bullies and appologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them? Making excuses for them doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and wanting to become our friends... it encourages them to ramp up their efforts.

Iamon lyme:

EXACTLY

Iamon lyme: You think too much.

Don't worry about it. Our respective military commanders understand. Maybe if I posted videos of me burning bibles and the US flag on a bonfire you will... or make a video of some guy dressed up as Jesus committing various lewd acts.

"You make reference to Christians and comparing them with Islamists (?) as though it is somehow relevant.. are we getting ready to delve yet again into the past, to find some historical perspective you believe may shore up your point?"

The now I prefer.

"Do you believe backing down to bullies and appologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them?"

Did I say back down.. putting words in my mouth again.

"Making excuses for them doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and wanting to become our friends... it encourages them to ramp up their efforts."

Maybe you should study how the NI war ended. As one who lived through that era before you Americans got to experience terrorism at home .. ... !!! .. .. ok, that is wrong... better to say.. before you got to experience terrorism from an organisation based outside the US. As you did have many internal groups willing to resort to violence.

.. as did many countries before 9/11

(V): [ You think too much. ]

It's partly attributable to a mild case of aspergers, a condition I was born with. It can a be a weakness or a strength, depending on how much self discipline I'm willing to exercise.

[ Maybe if I posted videos of me burning bibles and the US flag on a bonfire you will... or make a video of some guy dressed up as Jesus committing various lewd acts. ]

Burning the flag doesn't bother me, because a flag is an inanimate object. I'm only a nationalist in the sense that I live here, and don't want to see the US become just another rat hole for despots to play around with.

In regard to videos or "artwork" or vile comments designed to insult and denigrate my religion, where have you been? I've seen examples of that for most of my life. In fact, I used to be one those people who would laugh at and demean christians, until I became one.

Ironic, huh? I ended up becoming the object of my own scorn. Why do you suppose anyone would do that? Or am I asking you to "think too much"?

Iamon lyme: Everyone suffers from that to some degree.. ie a lack of self discipline... that's why God invented meditation.

"and don't want to see the US become just another rat hole for despots to play around with."

Same here.. but you already are.. I could quote a line out of the matrix, but, you might already know it.

"I used to be one those people who would laugh at and demean christians, until I became one."

Rebelliousness...from you've said.. expected.

"I ended up becoming the object of my own scorn. Why do you suppose anyone would do that? Or am I asking you to "think too much"?"

nope... a point in life can trigger things to change.. like who am I.... I got stuck on the surrendering to God for years.. till I realised that God 'is'.

... it's a matter of the image thing and maintaining the central law of Jesus.. what he said. .. ... Love all that is God. The OT says God is in everything.. how do you get comfortable with that?

(V): [ ... it's a matter of the image thing and maintaining the central law of Jesus.. what he said. .. ... Love all that is God. The OT says God is in everything.. how do you get comfortable with that? ]

Don't you mean to say YOU are not comfortable with that? btw, that too was a question... whether a question is rhetorical or not, asking is not the same as putting words into someones mouth.

You appear to be asking "how do I get comfortable" with what you believe the Bible says and who you think God is. Shouldn't the question be why am I comfortable with what I see in the Bible and who I believe God is? Or are you the consummate authority on all spiritual matters for yourself and everyone else?

Iamon lyme: No.

"Shouldn't the question be why am I comfortable with what I see in the Bible and who I believe God is? Or are you the consummate authority on all spiritual matters for yourself and everyone else?"

No.

(V): (V): "Do you believe backing down to bullies and apologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them?" [ Did I say back down.. putting words in my mouth again. ]


Did I say that's what you said? No, I don't think so... do you see anywhere where I might have said you said that?

Sending out a straw man to fight an imaginary straw man is inventive, but not very smart. It was a question, and from my point of view a rhetorical one. Other than a few new age thinkers or perhaps someone who has never had to deal with bullying, I think the answer is obvious. Ever hear of a fellow by the name of Neville Chamberlain?

[ Maybe you should study how the NI war ended. As one who lived through that era before you Americans got to experience terrorism at home .. ... !!! .. .. ok, that is wrong... better to say.. before you got to experience terrorism from an organisation based outside the US. As you did have many internal groups willing to resort to violence. ]

So what is your point? Are you saying it's okay to deal with violent organizations if they are internal, but not okay to deal with them if they are not internal? If both will attack you where you live then why make a distinction?

Iamon lyme: Well that seems to be your stawman argument in a nutshell. .. to use your phrase.

"Neville Chamberlain?"

No... he invented the wheel didn't he... or was it he was a Conservative PM who died in 1940? .. of whom Churchill said...

"Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.[204]"

>>>>> Hitler lied, Chamberlain's only real mistake was believing Hitler would live upto his word. The Versailles Treaty was a big mistake.

.... Did you hear that Ford applied for and was paid damages by the US government for damage done to it's German plants by allied bombing.


"So what is your point? Are you saying it's okay to deal with violent organizations if they are internal, but not okay to deal with them if they are not internal? If both will attack you where you live then why make a distinction?"

no... I don't make a distinction.. another strawman.