Administration Creates Ad to Appease Pakistanis - Page 4

40yearfan · #31 (**permalink**) 09-22-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Your density.

Then why did you quote Comet, a guy? o.O

Where did she say that the Administration asked YouTube to REMOVE the video instead of just reviewing the video to see if it violated their terms of service?

The assertion that the Administration asked for the video to be removed instead of reviewed.

The Obama Administration asked for the video to be reviewed. Not removed.

I'm saying that Nuland didn't say that they asked for the video to be removed, they asked for it to be reviewed. They may have wanted it removed, but that's not what they asked for.

Actually, I'm trying to guide you to the light. But it's like pulling an elephant through the eye of a needle.

You are a real dingbat. You didn't even read my post or look at what it was in response to. I thought I quoted Coyote who was asking if we were sure it was the Obama Administration that ran the apologizing ads on the Pakistani TV stations. Regardless, you are still screwed up. I posted an article from Politico with a statement from a named person in the state department confiming they had run the ads. It had nothing to do with the Youtube video. Your reading comprehension is beyond suspect.

dabateman · #32 (**permalink**) 09-22-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

You are a real dingbat.

And here I prove you wrong YET AGAIN.

Quote:

You didn't even read my post or look at what it was in response to.

I did. You just didn't like it.

Quote:

I quoted Coyote who was asking if we were sure it was the Obama Administration that ran the apologizing ads on the Pakistani TV stations.

False. Here's your proof...

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/ope...tml#post480527

Note, that post quotes COMET, not COYOTE... Perhaps you should put down the Red Stripe...

Quote:

I posted an article from Politico with a statement from a named person in the state department confiming they had run the ads. It had nothing to do with the Youtube video. Your reading comprehension is beyond suspect.

Go back and note that you quoted COMET and not COYOTE and note that COMET's WHOLE ASSERTION is that A does not equal B, and he had been talking about the YouTube videos and a means of illustrating that point.

Would you care to try again muffin?

Kizzume · #33 (**permalink**) 09-22-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

So when the "give it up or we'll take it" administration asks Google to "review" a video it is just a friendly request. There is no implication the power of the Federal government goes with it. Please.

Would it be OK for an administration to ask a newspaper to review their usage policy for an editorial criticising Obama? How about a column calling him a socialist, that is supposed to be offensive.

THIS! THIS is what I mean. Well said.

SwissMan · #34 (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 11:37 AM

Dipping Bird still at it,it seems!

Manitou · #35 (**permalink**) 10-09-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comet

That is an exaggeration of the facts. The White House asked them to see if the video violated their terms of use.

Big difference.

"Can you see if this video violates your terms of use?"

"Can you remove this video?"

See the difference?

It would be interesting to find out how many times the Obama administration has asked YouTube if certain videos violate their terms of use. I smell chicken caca.

SwissMan · #36 (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comet

That is an exaggeration of the facts. The White House asked them to see if the video violated their terms of use.

Big difference.

"Can you see if this video violates your terms of use?"

"Can you remove this video?"

See the difference?

If the Government "SUGGESTS" something,you might as well comply!
Under all that Heap of friendly suggestion there is always a Gun pointed at you!
The Government by its very nature is coercive!
Funny thing is,that the VID wasn't the Cause of all the Ruckus anyway!

AZRWinger · #37 (**permalink**) 10-10-2012, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comet

That is an exaggeration of the facts. The White House asked them to see if the video violated their terms of use.

Big difference.

"Can you see if this video violates your terms of use?"

"Can you remove this video?"

See the difference?

Just because the video maker sits in jail without bail after a theatrical arrest is no reason to doubt the innocence of the OA's request. Yeah right. The difference is Google has the money and public platform to say no to the OA.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
Comet