Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another fake GOP scandal debunked

The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.

Will the money wasted by the GOP on years of hearings be reimbursed to the taxpayers?

Will they apologize for their deceptive tactics and outright lies?

Will Fox finally be forced to admit the administration was neither lying, nor misleading the public? (unlike the GOP and Fox News pundits.)

Will the American people be intelligent enough to recognize the overt efforts to propagandize people on behalf of the GOP and their wealthy backers?

Discuss.
TheYummyCod
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.
"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." ~Calvin Coolidge
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.

A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.

So, no, you're completely wrong.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Excuse me, I meant to say New York Times *piece.*
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
TheYummyCod
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never mentioned Fox, and never implied that they were any better. I was only telling you that Huffington Post is a biased source, and that you shouldn't use it in debate.

In regards to your four points, they're irrelevant to my own, which was that Huffington Post was an unreliable source. Just because your article cites the NYT repeatedly doesn't qualify the Huffington Post to be anything close to reliable.

I never voiced any arguments opposing your position as stated, and never said anything to warrant you being neurotic about this as a whole.

I'm only saying that if you want to "debunk" a "fake GOP scandal" (as a side note, it's actually a presidential scandal, no GOP members were involved), use a reliable source next time. :)

Have a nice day!
"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." ~Calvin Coolidge
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 9:03:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.
Because they would never lie, right?

Will the money wasted by the GOP on years of hearings be reimbursed to the taxpayers?
Sure, once I get the wasted money on decades of hearing regarding steroids in baseball.

Will they apologize for their deceptive tactics and outright lies?
So, you want them to apologize for being politicians and political hacks?
It's not a lie if they believed it (or rather, if they didn't know it was false).

Will Fox finally be forced to admit the administration was neither lying, nor misleading the public? (unlike the GOP and Fox News pundits.)
Nope. Why would they?
They'll just move on. That's what party hacks do.

Will the American people be intelligent enough to recognize the overt efforts to propagandize people on behalf of the GOP and their wealthy backers?
People, I hope, are aware of this...just like the other side does the exact same thing.
In fact, ANY zealot, ANY advocate will spin the truth for their own agenda. It's called persuasion.
https://www.youtube.com...
I could have sworn one of these said "corn syrup is just as nutritious as sugar" or something along those lines.
My work here is, finally, done.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:28:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...

Coverage of opinion pieces versus factual pieces isn't an indicator of reliability. Factual pieces can be wrong, and a news source could also focus on factual pieces that support specific viewpoints (while ignoring others).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:39:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:28:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...

Coverage of opinion pieces versus factual pieces isn't an indicator of reliability. Factual pieces can be wrong, and a news source could also focus on factual pieces that support specific viewpoints (while ignoring others).

Better to report factual information however, which Huff doesn't usually do.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:39:31 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:28:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...

Coverage of opinion pieces versus factual pieces isn't an indicator of reliability. Factual pieces can be wrong, and a news source could also focus on factual pieces that support specific viewpoints (while ignoring others).

Better to report factual information however, which Huff doesn't usually do.

In this case, however, it is factual information, so it really doesn't matter what the other articles on the site are. I've seen an article promoting homeopathy on Huffpo before, but that doesn't mean that the entire site is dedicated to pseudosciences. It indicates that not every article on there is reliable, which can be said of any news source.

Also, you don't really have any data on Huffpo's politics section. From skimming headlines, I can say that at least 60% of the articles are factual instead of opinion-based.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 11:41:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...

That's complete nonsense. All your link says about Fox, outside of ratings, is this:

"In the Pew Research sample, two of the three major cable news channels had a fairly even distribution of airtime devoted to opinion and to newsgathering. CNN was the only one to feature more reporting (54%) than opinion (46%) overall. At the Fox News Channel, the split leaned toward moderately more opinion (55%) than reporting (45%)."

To which I say....so what?

Now, here are some ACTUAL facts about Fox:

http://www.poynter.org... -- "Survey: NPR"s listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed"

http://inthecapital.streetwise.co... -- "Study: People Who Don't Watch the News Are More Informed Than Fox Viewers"

http://aattp.org... -- "http://aattp.org...;

And I could point out a plethora of deceptive and mendacious claims made by O'Reilly, Hannity, et al. -- particularly dumb comments about how Benghazi was the biggest scandal ever -- but these should do for now. And you're probably in the camp that thinks Media Matters is "biased" even though they display the bloody clips, so I'm going to avoid that argument with you ahead of time.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:38:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.


Or maybe he watched TV and is smart enough to know what answer might get him a get out of jail free card. Perhaps he's figured out that Obama's only enemies in the whole wide world are Americans and he's playing him.
This space for rent.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:47:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:27:09 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I never mentioned Fox, and never implied that they were any better. I was only telling you that Huffington Post is a biased source, and that you shouldn't use it in debate.

In regards to your four points, they're irrelevant to my own, which was that Huffington Post was an unreliable source. Just because your article cites the NYT repeatedly doesn't qualify the Huffington Post to be anything close to reliable.

I never voiced any arguments opposing your position as stated, and never said anything to warrant you being neurotic about this as a whole.

I'm only saying that if you want to "debunk" a "fake GOP scandal" (as a side note, it's actually a presidential scandal, no GOP members were involved), use a reliable source next time. :)

Have a nice day!

The source was the NYT. But they have a pay wall, and I don't assume everyone on debate.org is a subscriber. So I found it for free on Huff Post.

It's not a Huff Po article, Huff po is not the "source" Your critique is a misguided attempt to dismiss the now GOP oriented scandal.

It never was a Presidential scandal, because the administration did nothing wrong.

The entire debate was orchestrated by the GOP for the Romney campaign, then they harped on it for two years because it was divisive, and if they can't have the nation, no one can.

You're using a logical fallacy when you dismiss the message because you don't like the messenger.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:49:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:27:09 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I never mentioned Fox, and never implied that they were any better. I was only telling you that Huffington Post is a biased source, and that you shouldn't use it in debate.

In regards to your four points, they're irrelevant to my own, which was that Huffington Post was an unreliable source. Just because your article cites the NYT repeatedly doesn't qualify the Huffington Post to be anything close to reliable.

I never voiced any arguments opposing your position as stated, and never said anything to warrant you being neurotic about this as a whole.

I'm only saying that if you want to "debunk" a "fake GOP scandal" (as a side note, it's actually a presidential scandal, no GOP members were involved), use a reliable source next time. :)

Have a nice day!

Huff Po is NOT a biased source when they report on something another organization reported already.

If you want to try and frame the NYT as unreliable, power to you, though you would still be wrong.

Again, it was never a Presidential scandal, and the latest information makes that very clear. This is a media circus scandal and should result in a tremendous loss in viewership at the lie network, Fox News.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:51:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.

Will the money wasted by the GOP on years of hearings be reimbursed to the taxpayers?

Will they apologize for their deceptive tactics and outright lies?

Will Fox finally be forced to admit the administration was neither lying, nor misleading the public? (unlike the GOP and Fox News pundits.)

Will the American people be intelligent enough to recognize the overt efforts to propagandize people on behalf of the GOP and their wealthy backers?

Discuss.

well apparently those muslins have short fuses so a video makes them kill peeple a insulting video is no excuse for killing people!!!!!!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:53:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...

According to one 2013 Pew poll.

Other polls say very different things.

http://www.newsmax.com...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...

Frankly, it's only 'reliable' to the politically biased right wing radicals who frequent it.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com...

http://www.rawstory.com...

So while a biased person might maintain Fox is a 'reliable' source, the facts and reality disagree.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:54:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:39:31 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:28:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:13:03 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:13:07 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 7:09:33 PM, TheYummyCod wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but the Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable source. At all.

Don't be caught using it in debates.

Otherwise, I'm too busy to be caught up in a debate over a scandal that's more of a "This administration has been lying to us, and they won't tell us why", than an actual scandal.


A few things for you:

1. You're attacking HuffPo for not being credible? When has HuffPo ever done anything remotely comparable to the endless amount of lies released by Fox?

2. The entire article is sourced.

3. They referenced a New York Times interview.

4. They're reporting on an interview.


So, no, you're completely wrong.

Actually Fox is one of the more credible sites out there:

http://www.pewresearch.org...

Coverage of opinion pieces versus factual pieces isn't an indicator of reliability. Factual pieces can be wrong, and a news source could also focus on factual pieces that support specific viewpoints (while ignoring others).

Better to report factual information however, which Huff doesn't usually do.

Citation needed*

Right wing armchair pundits always say this, yet never provide anything to support their assertion of bias.

It's easy to find examples of lies told by Fox, it's much more difficult to do that with Huff Po, but conservatives distrust anything that challenges their social perceptions.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:38:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.


Or maybe he watched TV and is smart enough to know what answer might get him a get out of jail free card. Perhaps he's figured out that Obama's only enemies in the whole wide world are Americans and he's playing him.

Yeah, because they get cable widely in Libya.

I love how conservatives are willing to believe anything at all, so long as it is bad for this administration.

Without proof or suspicion, you're unwilling to accept the confession of a terrorist, because it's not the confession you want to hear.

Partisan behaviors like this are killing our nation. But staunch tea party folks don't care about the America that exists, just the America they want to exist.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At the same time, though, the attack had likely been planned before the release of the video in Arabic. I mean, consider that the attack took place on September 11.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 9:25:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:38:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.


Or maybe he watched TV and is smart enough to know what answer might get him a get out of jail free card. Perhaps he's figured out that Obama's only enemies in the whole wide world are Americans and he's playing him.

Yeah, because they get cable widely in Libya.


lol. and I bet you fancy yourself one of the well informed non-fox watchers, right? But you figure they're still herding goats over there in Libya, repairing their fishing nets by candlelight in the evening.


Without proof or suspicion, you're unwilling to accept the confession of a terrorist, because it's not the confession you want to hear.


Don't be a moron - they didn't attack our embassy because they were upset at a youtube video. Come on, do the math - they don't have cable TV over there in Libya, so they couldn't know about the stink here in America, yet they watched some obscure Youtube video?

Partisan behaviors like this are killing our nation. But staunch tea party folks don't care about the America that exists, just the America they want to exist.

No, voters being morons is killing our nation. That's my partisan opinion, anyway.
This space for rent.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 9:28:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:58:21 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At the same time, though, the attack had likely been planned before the release of the video in Arabic. I mean, consider that the attack took place on September 11.

Except the guy who planned the attack said he did it because of the video.

If you were a member of a paramilitary organization, wouldn't you plan most of your possible attacks in advance? I mean at least the rough overview?

Wouldn't that make tactical sense from an objective perspective?

We have plans to invade Canada if ever we need to. They are called contingencies.

Perhaps the video is what set off this particular contingency.

It's certainly just as viable of a theory as yours.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 9:35:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Partisan behaviors like this are killing our nation. But staunch tea party folks don't care about the America that exists, just the America they want to exist.

And, btw, in a little different tone of voice: I think "partisan behavior" is passing the ACA without a single GOP vote. That's making radical changes to the country without caring what half the country wants.

So if this president isn't liked, he brought it on himself. He's one person, half of America is 150 million people, so forgive me if I can't feel too sorry for poor Barack. He chose the job, I sure as heck didn't ask him to screw up all the things he's screwed up.

And I'm not calling you a moron, just spouting off. Now I'm going to go get coffee and finish routing a board.
This space for rent.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 9:58:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 9:25:42 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:38:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.


Or maybe he watched TV and is smart enough to know what answer might get him a get out of jail free card. Perhaps he's figured out that Obama's only enemies in the whole wide world are Americans and he's playing him.

Yeah, because they get cable widely in Libya.


lol. and I bet you fancy yourself one of the well informed non-fox watchers, right? But you figure they're still herding goats over there in Libya, repairing their fishing nets by candlelight in the evening.



If this is the strawman you need to build in order to have discourse, you will never learn anything.

I certainly know they don't get Fox News in every household.

Let's look at statistics on the matter, rather than disparaging a factual statement using derisive language and assumptions, like you did.

http://www.nationmaster.com...

Libyans only get their state run TV, and only 10 percent have internet, so their perception of American news will come from their state provided sources, not American media. So they didn't pick up this tactic watching TV.

Without proof or suspicion, you're unwilling to accept the confession of a terrorist, because it's not the confession you want to hear.


Don't be a moron - they didn't attack our embassy because they were upset at a youtube video. Come on, do the math - they don't have cable TV over there in Libya, so they couldn't know about the stink here in America, yet they watched some obscure Youtube video?

Like a Partisan, you cast personal insults.

They did attack our embassy because of the video, because they admitted it. Your insistence to the contrary is entirely based on partisan bias.

They have cellphones, cellphones can go to youtube, which is free.

Cellphones do not get Fox News 24/7 network, nor can they bypass pay walls for the major news publications here. They also have regional locks for mobile users on ABC, NBC and CBS, so they wouldn't be able to view the main networks either.

I didn't say they weren't aware of the goings on in America, I question your assumption that they would understand the nuances of our political bickering, and arbitrarily decide to reverse his original denial of involvement, simply because he feels it will endear him to the administration which has killed more insurgents than any American regime since Vietnam.

I question your partisan perspective and lack of critical insight.


Partisan behaviors like this are killing our nation. But staunch tea party folks don't care about the America that exists, just the America they want to exist.

No, voters being morons is killing our nation. That's my partisan opinion, anyway.

Yes morons certainly ARE contributing to the downfall of our nation. Your partisan opinion exemplifies that fact.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:09:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 9:35:39 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Partisan behaviors like this are killing our nation. But staunch tea party folks don't care about the America that exists, just the America they want to exist.

And, btw, in a little different tone of voice: I think "partisan behavior" is passing the ACA without a single GOP vote. That's making radical changes to the country without caring what half the country wants.

No, passing the ACA without a single GOP vote is called legislative action, and is an essential aspect of a Republic, as it is the will of the majority being represented through a democratic process. The GOP's nearly decade long obstructionism is not.

The people voted for the Democrats who voted for the ACA. They literally represent the will of the majority. Just not your party, which is not in the majority.


So if this president isn't liked, he brought it on himself. He's one person, half of America is 150 million people, so forgive me if I can't feel too sorry for poor Barack. He chose the job, I sure as heck didn't ask him to screw up all the things he's screwed up.


No one cares why you claim not to like Obama, we know why you don't like him, and your opinion isn't worth the breath spent to voice it.

The GOP isn't even close to "half of "murica", and it certainly doesn't have 150million members. You're attempt to portray this as fact is sign of an us vs them mentality cultivated by your chosen fear-mongering news sources.

Obama hasn't screwed anything up, if anything he's been a continuation of the very policies which made the Bush administration so corrupt. Obama is the perpetuation of the status quo, but you're too blinded by partisan rhetoric to see he's the most centrist Democrat which could possibly have taken office. As a conservative, you should be thankful for B. Obama.

If you could give examples of what Obama has "screwed up" rather than casting broad, baseless critiques, I might entertain your blather, but that is for a different forum, as this is about the Benghazi propaganda spouted by Fox News.

You're not going to derail this into a bicker-fest over Obama's policies and your misconceptions of reality.

And I'm not calling you a moron, just spouting off. Now I'm going to go get coffee and finish routing a board.

You were calling me a moron. And you did it with improper grammar, which is the ultimate irony.

Go build your routing board and leave the politics to people who study it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:31:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 9:03:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Will the money wasted by the GOP on years of hearings be reimbursed to the taxpayers?
Sure, once I get the wasted money on decades of hearing regarding steroids in baseball.


That exchange pretty much sums up everything you need to know about Benghazi.

Did it happen? Sure.
Can we fix it? Sure.
Do we fix it? Not a chance. Too many people in power involved.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:34:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:09:22 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Obama hasn't screwed anything up, if anything he's been a continuation of the very policies which made the Bush administration so corrupt.

A: Bush is a screwup.
B: Obama is just like Bush.
C: Obama is not a screwup.

Fuzzy logic on display.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:44:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:09:22 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
...

No one cares why you claim not to like Obama, we know why you don't like him, and your opinion isn't worth the breath spent to voice it.


Right, you've responded to two or three posts on an anonymous website and you know why I don't like him.

Just for my own chuckles, would you like to tell me what color my skin is? How about my gender? Age?

The GOP isn't even close to "half of "murica", and it certainly doesn't have 150million members.

Well then, neither is/does the Democrat party who rammed through Obamacare. Can't have it both ways - either the parties represent constituencies or they don't.


You were calling me a moron. And you did it with improper grammar, which is the ultimate irony.


No, not really. There was plural (collective) and singular in context, the is/are tells you which one I was referring to.

Go build your routing board and leave the politics to people who study it.

Ah yes, your elitism ain't exactly hard to spot. But I'm still a liberal and a democrat, and most of all a constitutionalist, so no, I'm not going to hand you power you haven't earned. One vote is all you get, at least legally.

But, btw, I do have to admit - the suspect guy may in fact have hit up Benghazi because of the youtube video, I really don't know. And he/they also could be lying, bad guys have been known to do that. What's important to me is that the youtube excuse is completely bogus and an administration that respected free speech would not have endorsed their excuse.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:47:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 9:58:59 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 6/19/2014 9:25:42 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:38:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.


Or maybe he watched TV and is smart enough to know what answer might get him a get out of jail free card. Perhaps he's figured out that Obama's only enemies in the whole wide world are Americans and he's playing him.

Yeah, because they get cable widely in Libya.


lol. and I bet you fancy yourself one of the well informed non-fox watchers, right? But you figure they're still herding goats over there in Libya, repairing their fishing nets by candlelight in the evening.



If this is the strawman you need to build in order to have discourse, you will never learn anything.

I certainly know they don't get Fox News in every household.


Btw, "they" isn't the issue, the question is whether the suspect knew what was going on. And I'd wager he did. Everybody since Vietnam knows that the way to defeat America is through the press, so trust me, they're watching.
This space for rent.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:08:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:47:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/19/2014 9:58:59 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 6/19/2014 9:25:42 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:57:20 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:38:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/18/2014 2:48:08 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Republicans and their media arm at Fox News have derided the administration and intelligence community reports indicating the video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attackers.

Now, straight from the mouth of the perpetrator, we learn that claim was entirely true.


Or maybe he watched TV and is smart enough to know what answer might get him a get out of jail free card. Perhaps he's figured out that Obama's only enemies in the whole wide world are Americans and he's playing him.

Yeah, because they get cable widely in Libya.


lol. and I bet you fancy yourself one of the well informed non-fox watchers, right? But you figure they're still herding goats over there in Libya, repairing their fishing nets by candlelight in the evening.



If this is the strawman you need to build in order to have discourse, you will never learn anything.

I certainly know they don't get Fox News in every household.


Btw, "they" isn't the issue, the question is whether the suspect knew what was going on. And I'd wager he did. Everybody since Vietnam knows that the way to defeat America is through the press, so trust me, they're watching.

Yeah, it wasn't the fact that Vietnam was a boondoggle that caused the defeat of America, it was Walter Cronkite accurately reporting the boondoggle that did it. Yeah, sure.

More revisionist history from a conservative.

If you're not willing to accurately represent history, you should examine why.

Vietnam was the second "war" the American government waged on behalf of the economic interests of international bankers. And we betrayed our stalwart ally Ho Chi Mihn, who upon breaking his nation away from the economic vassalage of France said ""All men are born equal. The Creator has given us inviolable rights: life, liberty, and happiness!"

Then we declared war on him, because communism threatened France (and our) imperial interests in exploiting southeast Asian nations.

You can't spin the facts of history, but you can ignore them if you're ignorant enough.

You will forgive me if I can't trust the word of someone who continues to tout falsehoods when facts are presented to counter their baseless accusations.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:13:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 10:34:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/19/2014 10:09:22 AM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:

Obama hasn't screwed anything up, if anything he's been a continuation of the very policies which made the Bush administration so corrupt.

A: Bush is a screwup.
B: Obama is just like Bush.
C: Obama is not a screwup.

Fuzzy logic on display.

Where did I say Obama isn't a screw up?

I simply say Obama is a perpetuation of the status quo. Bush was a screwup who created the status quo.

Conesrvetives tend to think if you don't accept their blindly partisan critiques of the Obama administration, you must be a cheerleader.

I have a tremendous number of criticisms of Obama, just not baseless criticisms, and they are the same criticisms I had of Bush.

Conservatives do not share these criticisms, because they are the ones who exercise fuzzy logic.

I hold the President accountable for what he is accountable for, and the GOP accountable for what they are accountable for.

You're conservative friends refuse to acknowledge the mistakes of the Bush administration, preferring to whitewash their idiotic policy choices and abysmal foreign relations.

They then attempt to create scandal so the GOP isn't forced to change any policy stances. They want to win an election based on ad hominem and propaganda, so they can continue milking the American working class and consumer class for every penny they can.

If you offer legitimate criticisms of the President, I will gladly discuss them with you, but not in a forum on the propaganda efforts by Fox News. Stay on topic, or get out of my forum.