|
Okay, someone's gonna have to explain this one to me. I didn't think it was a matter of them making an effort to include other religions; I thought they just plain couldn't have official government business showing favor for a religion, or for religion in general.
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
comes along bort posted:Not content to just castrate Washington Fat Cats, conservative lt. colonel farm mom and now apparently some biker's old lady Joni Ernst promises to shoot Obamacare right in its stupid face if elected senator: Ha. The end of that. "Contribut"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I think conservatives are hammering Benghazi because it's one of the few foreign relations failures that they believe Obama/the dems had options in. Except that none of this is what RWM are talking about. They just keep saying that Obama and Hillary lied about something after Benghazi happened. They won't say exactly what the lie was, it's just an insistence that a lie was told to cover something up, and now the RWM is "just asking questions" and saying "what did Obama and Hillary lie about?" It would be one thing if they kept saying "Obama and Hillary lied [specific thing]" but they don't. They just keep saying the administration lied and then keep asking the administration what they lied about. It's almost like birthers. They insist Obama was born in Kenya and then kept asking him for the REAL birth certificate even after he released his real actual birth certificate. They won't be satisfied until Obama and Hillary just admit they did something wrong, despite that not being the case.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Amergin posted:In Benghazi, American lives were lost essentially due to gov't incompetence coupled with CIA dealings we didn't want disclosed (this is my brief understanding of the issue). The Republicans perceive it to be due to gov't incompetence: Obama was either too dumb or too power-hungry (winning the 2012 election) to want to call it a terror attack, and Obama was either too dumb or too lazy to deploy whatever forces were necessary to protect Ambassador Stevens, or that the former (not considering it to be a real terror attack) lead to the latter. And yes, you do have some relevant points in the rest of your post, but (un)fortunately that's not the way it's being presented as. Hell, at this point the Republicans are simply going OBAMA WAS HIDING SOMETHING!!!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Not content to just castrate Washington Fat Cats, conservative lt. colonel farm mom and now apparently some biker's old lady Joni Ernst promises to shoot Obamacare right in its stupid face if elected senator: How can people see this and not feel totally pandered to? It's so transparently stupid. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Okay, someone's gonna have to explain this one to me. I didn't think it was a matter of them making an effort to include other religions; I thought they just plain couldn't have official government business showing favor for a religion, or for religion in general. I haven't read the opinion but it seems consistent with precedent: quote:The legal benchmark for legislative prayer remains the 1983 Supreme Court decision, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), which ruled that the Nebraska legislature's tradition of opening with a prayer by a paid chaplain was constitutional. Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers challenged the practice as violative of the Establishment Clause. The Marsh decision carved out a very narrow exception to the Establishment Clause, as well as established Court doctrine, as a nod to history and custom; however, the Court made clear that “Standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees . . . ” Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790 (1983). http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14015-prayers-at-government-meetings
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:How can people see this and not feel totally pandered to? It's so transparently stupid. Aren't these the same people who gush about how Reagan "made them feel good to be American again  "?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Not content to just castrate Washington Fat Cats, conservative lt. colonel farm mom and now apparently some biker's old lady Joni Ernst promises to shoot Obamacare right in its stupid face if elected senator: I always look at each new cycle of campaign ads and tell myself "Well it can't get any more insane than that" and somehow each new cycle manages to outdo the last. This increasing fad of conservatives shooting government ads feels like a lucid dream, and I admire and pity The Onion for how difficult it must be to outcrazy this poo poo consistently. Hell half the time they don't even outcrazy it anymore, they just outright showcase it and it's laughably absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Okay, someone's gonna have to explain this one to me. I didn't think it was a matter of them making an effort to include other religions; I thought they just plain couldn't have official government business showing favor for a religion, or for religion in general. "Congress shall make no law..." It's at the local level so it's not unconstitutional. It's kinda lovely since it's exclusive to non-Christians but it's not against the law that I know of.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:"Congress shall make no law..." edit: oh, I guess it has to have "history and custom" eh? So say, in a predominantly Jewish town, Jewish prayers are okay? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 17:48 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Robviously posted:You can't say that including context makes it a talking point when you ignore the context of what's happened since. There has been investigation after investigation that has basically said that, at most, the buck stops at the State Department and not Obama's administration. I guess I should have clarified a bit: you're right in that there's nothing linking to the Obama administration, but that's not who the GOP is targeting now. Obviously this whole thing is a political move against Hilary in preparation for 2016. There are two separate issues at hand with Benghazi. You seem to be arguing against the first: who was "responsible" for the tragedy, who could have done something, and why did it happen the way it happened? As you said, what we've learned is essentially it was a clusterfuck and nobody could have stopped it, or at best we might have been able to throw a few CIA personnel in and gotten more people killed. The GOP is still grumbling about the government resources out there and the communication being such a hot mess, which is a decent criticism of much of our current government: bureaucratic red tape, lack of communication/coordination, hot mess. The second issue is about the explanation after the fact, and this is where the email comes in. Why couldn't the State Dept. just admit that the attack was more coordinated and more "terrorist-y" than just a mob riled up by a movie? Was that the catalyst? Was the movie involved at all? The State Dept. decided to go the safer route and blame the movie, and the timing of all this with the elections just seems fishy (to those who want fishiness - to me it sounds like a PR attempt that failed). Remember this is coming from a president who originally promised his tenure would be one of the most transparent. I for one would have preferred the State Dept. being straight with the American public. I fall somewhere between "There's nothing to see here" and "Benghazigate: The Dems killed Americans!!!!" Samurai Sanders posted:Okay, someone's gonna have to explain this one to me. I didn't think it was a matter of them making an effort to include other religions; I thought they just plain couldn't have official government business showing favor for a religion, or for religion in general. You can show favor to religion (or "faith") in general, but not to any particular religion or brand of non-religion. It's the difference between holding the door open for everyone and a Christian pastor happens to be the only one who walks in, and opening the door only for the Christian pastor. The fact that they included a Wiccan priestess to me sounds like they made an attempt at keeping the door open for whoever wanted to step in. The problem is: how do you include non-religious? Do they have a local professor come in and give a quick secular lecture on the current Big Bang theory?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Okay, someone's gonna have to explain this one to me. I didn't think it was a matter of them making an effort to include other religions; I thought they just plain couldn't have official government business showing favor for a religion, or for religion in general. "In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court has ruled (gently caress everybody who isn't a rich white christian)" I mean, you can't actually be shocked by that ruling at this point, can you?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:So I can become the principal of a public elementary school and then make it a Satanist elementary school? Cool! Not at all a constitution scholar so take this with a grain of salt but I think part of the ruling hinges that when complaints were lodged, the council got non-christian types to lead said opening ceremony. The idea is that since they were willing to have other denominations, they're not endorsing one specific religion so it's okay. Turning a public school Satanist, however, would be a direct endorsement of faith, so that's a no go. I'm personally of the mind that prayer has nothing to do at civic events but constitutional law disagrees as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:So I can become the principal of a public elementary school and then make it a Satanist elementary school? Cool! I'm not a lawyer but the way I see it, if you and the entire school board are Satanists and you all agree to endorse a Satanic daily prayer or something, that's technically OK. However your school will be burned down pretty soon after and you can bet that fundies will be lobbying the state and/or local governments to pass some kind of law that makes it so that no religions can be promoted in schools. Then they'll find a loophole to get Christianity exempt and law enforcement will probably ignore that and etc etc. Mo_Steel posted:I always look at each new cycle of campaign ads and tell myself "Well it can't get any more insane than that" and somehow each new cycle manages to outdo the last. This increasing fad of conservatives shooting government ads feels like a lucid dream, and I admire and pity The Onion for how difficult it must be to outcrazy this poo poo consistently. Hell half the time they don't even outcrazy it anymore, they just outright showcase it and it's laughably absurd. This is still the worst campaign ad I've ever seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ3B8WvVjL4
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
The 1st Amendment is incorporated against the states via the 14th, every judge not named Clarence Thomas agrees that the Congress part of 1A is obsolete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:"In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court has ruled (gently caress everybody who isn't a rich white christian)" Every single legislature in the US has opened with a prayer since before the country was founded. The US House's policies were quoted by the dissent as being whats an ok policy and that the council didn't make enough effort to be more inclusive.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I guess I should have clarified a bit: you're right in that there's nothing linking to the Obama administration, but that's not who the GOP is targeting now. Obviously this whole thing is a political move against Hilary in preparation for 2016. So, remember when Mitt Romney said that the embassy was "apologizing for American principles" before the attack took place and "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." It's all stuff he said before he knew all of the facts. And yeah, it'd be great if the State Dept. was more transparent but at this point the Republicans aren't talking about the State Department. They're clearly trying to say that Obama and Clinton are covering up details of what happened. Their current "smoking gun" is an email talking about what should be talked about and not what actually happened. Yes, the administration spun the story. Just like every administration does. To continue to push it further to there being active involvement in covering up some dubious act at any level higher than State shows a conspiratorial mindset that won't ever stop. Remember that the whole reason that the Republicans are pushing a cover up angle is that the information changed and the administration changed their story accordingly. Remember that the CIA was who gave most of the day 1 info about the attacks. They got the info wrong, Obama didn't tell them to change it. Hell, Obama even released the original CIA talking points. Benghazi is, at this point, simply red meat. Like I said, investigations have occurred that found problems. The right keeps pushing it because the problems stop before Obama has anything to do with it. Edit: Misread who you thought this was actually about. Spot on that it's about Clinton but they still won't stop because she's not going anywhere and has just as little to do with it. Robviously fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Has this New York Magazine article been posted here yet, about Lara Logan's incredible gently caress-up? This was a great article, thanks for sharing. The last paragraph: quote:So Lara Logan may, or may not, return in the fall season. Either way, the show must go on. Waiting in the wings is a new up-and-comer. Attractive, blonde, fluent in three foreign languages. Everybody is talking about 34-year-old Clarissa Ward. “Jeff’s very high on her,” says a 60 Minutes producer. The name sounded familiar, so I googled Clarissa Ward, and I recognized the picture from a retweet from Brown Moses that I read Saturday. About her and her news crew being detained in Ukraine by armed gunmen. Chilling.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Yes, the administration spun the story. Just like every administration does. To continue to push it further to there being active involvement in covering up some dubious act at any level higher than State shows a conspiratorial mindset that won't ever stop. I'm not a fan of "every administration does this" as an argument. Is it true? Certainly. But as a moderate-lib when Obama promised transparency, I believed him (naive of me, I know). When Obama - and more specifically, the State Dept. under Obama - doesn't follow through with transparency, fine. But Hilary is running in 2016, so keeping this in the minds of voters is reminding them that "Hey, whatever Hilary says about transparency for 2016, just remember what happened under her watch." It's red meat but it's also criticism and warning for 2016, and it seems to be effective. Hell, if nothing else it's a talking point that pisses liberals off to the point where they go "there's nothing to see here!" even though it's a valid criticism of the State Dept. and more specifically Hilary's leadership therein. Is it alone going to make me NOT vote for Clinton in 2016? No. Is it going to be in my mind while I watch the debates/election cycle unfold? You bet.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This was a great article, thanks for sharing. I probably should have mentioned this in the post, but as it turns out, Logan was working with Lindsey Graham in the buildup the report. It probably isn't surprising in hindsight, but I dunno if I'd ever seen this reveal before.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:Toyota ain't Toolin' up in Texas for Taxes - Says Texans Workin', Not twerkin' While it's likely that a "Big Deal Company" like Toyota got some kind of specialized tax treatment, according to this pretty neat Washington monthly article, most businesses in Texas won't see lower taxes than elsewhere. It's going to be a very interesting next 15-25 years in Texas, especially for Greater Houston(basically Harris and surrounding counties), as the current ludicrous growth speed is all but certain to continue for decades. That pace of expansion, combined with the unstoppable shift in regional/state/national demographics, is hopefully something Texas can handle because anywhere that becomes the next boom-state will probably look to what Texas will have done as an example, hopefully a good one. Here's a short piece about how the GOP is trying to deal with those changes. I found it a useful primer on how political parties perceive these coming changes: Democrats Want To Mess With Texas? GOP Says Not So Fast you can listen to it here too. If you have more time on your hands(~30min), last week there was a really cool interview with Dr. Stephen Klineberg co-director of this institute at Rice Univeristy about his latest study. It is a great discussion about the future of the "Blob that Ate East Texas": https://soundcloud.com/houstonmatters/what-does-the-latest-klineberg-study-tell-us-about-houston Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey posted:Now into its 33rd year, the annual “Kinder Institute Houston Area Survey” has measured systematically this region's ongoing economic and demographic transformations and recorded the way area residents are responding to them. No other metropolitan region in America has been the focus of a research program of this scope. No city more clearly exemplifies the trends that are rapidly refashioning the social and political landscape across all of urban America. Wait, what are all these egghead words doing 'round here? I meant to post: "I've got yer Toyoders now, Yankee..."  
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
THe problem I have with the 5-4 ruling in Galloway vs Greece is that it is still a public endorsement of religion over non-religion. The (all Catholic) majority seems to say its alright since it isn't specifically endorsing ONE religion over others, and since the issue was changed from endorsing religion over all to endorsing one PARTICULAR religion, they have sufficiently clouded the waters to allow the prayers to continue based on tradition. It is telling when the testifying plaintiff said they could not find a non-religious person to hold a similar prayer-that should really be irrelevant. IT isn't that atheists don't feel they aren't getting their "fair share", its that there shouldn't be anything to have a fair share of. Since the conservative justices casually ignored that part of it, they can finagle their religiosity into the public sphere under the guise of "fair treatment". I'm really disappointed with this ruling because it's so obviously partisan and biased by the justices, but it just holds up even more precedent for religion in the public sphere. Religious or not, its a sad day for personal freedoms, in particular those service men and women who are forced to stand in formation and be proselytized to from a federally funded clergyman. Its wrong, wrong, wrong but since we have dickheads on the bench appointed by dickheads 20 years ago we all have to suffer for it. I also have a problem with the traditionalist viewpoint on religious prayer in congress. It was traditionally acceptable to do a great many things up until very recently, yet they find reason to rule on those. It seems guns and religions are immune to this kind of critical eye.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It is telling when the testifying plaintiff said they could not find a non-religious person to hold a similar prayer-that should really be irrelevant. IT isn't that atheists don't feel they aren't getting their "fair share", its that there shouldn't be anything to have a fair share of. But if you consider "prayer time" to essentially be a preparation for an event with a quick lecture/word, couldn't atheists, agnostics and other non-religious bring a person in to simply give a secular feel-good message, or a philosophical quote, or some other secular message/introduction? If it doesn't have to be prayer I don't see why an atheist couldn't come in and do a quick reading of, say, Dr. Seuss. If they're prevented from doing that I would agree with you, but barring that I don't really see anything wrong with the ruling.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:I'm sure, given the way public schools are funded, that it's possible for Texas to absolutely tank national rankings and still have a few good districts where the top quintile types live. Texas actually reallocates money away from rich areas and toward poor ones. Not enough to make up the difference, but enough that it annoyed the parents at my insulated bubble college-town semi-affluent school district.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Texas actually reallocates money away from rich areas and toward poor ones. Not enough to make up the difference, but enough that it annoyed the parents at my insulated bubble college-town semi-affluent school district. People have already found ways to get around this, with it resulting in a huge education budget deficit for the state. I was amazingly surprised to find out that such a program even existed in Texas when I had to take a (mandatory) Texas history course as part of my undergraduate studies, but of course nothing good can last. wikipedia posted:But 10 years later, the Robin Hood plan was in jeopardy again. In November, 2005, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that, since the vast majority of school districts were having to tax at the maximum maintenance-and-operations (M&O) tax rate of $1.50 per $100 of property valuation just to raise enough money to meet state mandates, the school-finance system was, in effect, a state property tax, which is prohibited by the Texas Constitution. The Texas Legislature, meeting in a special session in April and May, 2006, passed legislation that met the court's requirements that local districts have "meaningful discretion" in setting tax rates. A series of bills changed the school finance system to cut school M&O property taxes by one-third by 2008, but allowed local school boards to increase tax rates from the new, lower levels, although generally only with voter approval. Some of the local property tax revenue lost by the one-third cut will be replaced by state revenue from a new business tax and higher cigarette taxes. The Comptroller estimated a five-year $23 billion shortfall from the revised tax system.[2] IIRC, the shortfall could've been covered with the Texas Education "rainy day" slush fund that the state keeps around, but it got used for useless transportation upgrades (the MOPAC 'improvement' project) and some of Perry's pet water reservoir projects.
Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But if you consider "prayer time" to essentially be a preparation for an event with a quick lecture/word, couldn't atheists, agnostics and other non-religious bring a person in to simply give a secular feel-good message, or a philosophical quote, or some other secular message/introduction? Its simply extraneous. If I wanted to sit up there and fold napkins and waste everyone's time, it shouldn't be OK just cuz others want to pray. It should focus on issues of the state along with any announcements for the agenda. Entreating an entity that may or may not exist, and one that is specifically outlined as not supposed to be endorsed by the state seems to be a complete waste of time. The best way to provide a secular session is to have that before the session begins, outside the council chambers, before everyone is on the clock. Same for military ceremonies. Dismiss all soldiers, then if they want to stay for the Invocation/Benediction they can-on their own. No one should be forced on penalty of insubordination to receive an invocation.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Its simply extraneous. If I wanted to sit up there and fold napkins and waste everyone's time, it shouldn't be OK just cuz others want to pray. It should focus on issues of the state along with any announcements for the agenda. Entreating an entity that may or may not exist, and one that is specifically outlined as not supposed to be endorsed by the state seems to be a complete waste of time. Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Wait, what? If you think that's magical, do some reading about the Air Force Academy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Why couldn't the State Dept. just admit that the attack was more coordinated and more "terrorist-y" than just a mob riled up by a movie? Was that the catalyst? Was the movie involved at all? The State Dept. decided to go the safer route and blame the movie, and the timing of all this with the elections just seems fishy (to those who want fishiness - to me it sounds like a PR attempt that failed). It seems like State asked the CIA what the gently caress happened since it was the CIA's black bag site and the CIA told State that it was just a spontaneous protest and since no one can question the CIA, that's what State told the American public.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Wait, what? There's a lot of "Ok, we're going to do a quick prayer, You don't have to join in, but I have the microphone and I am going to pray out loud. Monthly promotion ceremony starts when I'm done"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
duz posted:It seems like State asked the CIA what the gently caress happened since it was the CIA's black bag site and the CIA told State that it was just a spontaneous protest and since no one can question the CIA, that's what State told the American public.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
A lot of Navy ships, while at sea, will have prayers read aloud over the ship's PA system before 2200. I'm aethiest, but I don't really have a problem with it other than occasionally finding it annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Boon posted:A lot of Navy ships, while at sea, will have prayers read aloud over the ship's PA system before 2200. I would be like, dude, let's not temp fate here, at least throw out a small prayer for Poseidon while we are out here, you know?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
duz posted:It seems like State asked the CIA what the gently caress happened since it was the CIA's black bag site and the CIA told State that it was just a spontaneous protest and since no one can question the CIA, that's what State told the American public. There's a lot about this that bothers me, but this is the biggest thing: what evidence is there that any protests took place in Benghazi at all? We know they were happening in other countries, but saying there's a protest in Benghazi because there's one in Cairo is like saying "they're occupying Wall Street so they must be occupying Miami too."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
duz posted:It seems like State asked the CIA what the gently caress happened since it was the CIA's black bag site and the CIA told State that it was just a spontaneous protest and since no one can question the CIA, that's what State told the American public. The consulate wasn't affiliated with the CIA site. Though the CIA site and the consulate did have a mutual defense agreement of sorts.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:There's a lot about this that bothers me, but this is the biggest thing: what evidence is there that any protests took place in Benghazi at all? We know they were happening in other countries, but saying there's a protest in Benghazi because there's one in Cairo is like saying "they're occupying Wall Street so they must be occupying Miami too." But they were occupying Miami too. http://occupymia.org
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:THe problem I have with the 5-4 ruling in Galloway vs Greece is that it is still a public endorsement of religion over non-religion. The (all Catholic) majority seems to say its alright since it isn't specifically endorsing ONE religion over others, and since the issue was changed from endorsing religion over all to endorsing one PARTICULAR religion, they have sufficiently clouded the waters to allow the prayers to continue based on tradition. It is telling when the testifying plaintiff said they could not find a non-religious person to hold a similar prayer-that should really be irrelevant. IT isn't that atheists don't feel they aren't getting their "fair share", its that there shouldn't be anything to have a fair share of. Since the conservative justices casually ignored that part of it, they can finagle their religiosity into the public sphere under the guise of "fair treatment". Just to be clear, there were 9 votes for the idea that legislative prayer is okay; the dissent just felt that the town needed to be more inclusive in the concept of legislative prayer, not that the concept was unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:There's a lot about this that bothers me, but this is the biggest thing: what evidence is there that any protests took place in Benghazi at all? We know they were happening in other countries, but saying there's a protest in Benghazi because there's one in Cairo is like saying "they're occupying Wall Street so they must be occupying Miami too." Someone was mistaken less than 12 hours after something happened on the other side of the world. For all we know someone was misheard on a phone call.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:There's a lot about this that bothers me, but this is the biggest thing: what evidence is there that any protests took place in Benghazi at all? We know they were happening in other countries, but saying there's a protest in Benghazi because there's one in Cairo is like saying "they're occupying Wall Street so they must be occupying Miami too." Well, for one thing, Vilerat posted about how he could see and hear the protesters from his office window, and this was way before the attack. I'm not sure why he'd lie about that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Well, for one thing, Vilerat posted about how he could see and hear the protesters from his office window, and this was way before the attack. I'm not sure why he'd lie about that. The protests were over when the attack happened iirc. It seems a very reasonable thing for people on the opposite side of the world to be confused about.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:32
|
|