Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:But you didn't ask a direct question. You went on a disconnected spiel of "liberal lies" and "changing talking points" while wholly ignoring 13 other embassy or consulate attacks which nobody seemed to care about.

 

It's the way of the world these days.  There are a lot of people who substitute insults for reasoned discussion, and seem to think they are "winning" an argument by out-insulting you.  

 

"You're nothing but a dang liberal.  Everyone [in my little world] knows liberals lie cheat and steal.  Refute that!  I won!"  

Quote:Im sorry i forgot u was talking to a liberal. Give me the NAME of a US AMBASSADOR that was killed on foriegn soil or an INSTANCE where the former administration blamed SOCIAL MEDIA. i was looking for the crayon function but im on my phone.

Ah you only care about Americans being killed abroad when they are Ambassadors. No one else calls for outrage from the star spangled right. I am not even remotely surprised by that. A time will come when you all just admit (like McCarthy did) accidentally what is true but not yet. The outrage is phony and directed at a particular person you dislike. If it was anything else there would be million spent on investigations like this one for the ones that were listed for the sake of justice for the murdered Americans. You don't because it's not about justice, it's about politics. It's as simple as that. I have a strong feeling you all know it but keep perpetuating the fraud because you are too far down the rabbit hole of fabricated outrage. Frankly, it's disgusting. 

Quote:It's the way of the world these days.  There are a lot of people who substitute insults for reasoned discussion, and seem to think they are "winning" an argument by out-insulting you.  

 

"You're nothing but a dang liberal.  Everyone [in my little world] knows liberals lie cheat and steal.  Refute that!  I won!"  

He knows all about doing that.

Quote:Ah you only care about Americans being killed abroad when they are Ambassadors. No one else calls for outrage from the star spangled right. I am not even remotely surprised by that. A time will come when you all just admit (like McCarthy did) accidentally what is true but not yet. The outrage is phony and directed at a particular person you dislike. If it was anything else there would be million spent on investigations like this one for the ones that were listed for the sake of justice for the murdered Americans. You don't because it's not about justice, it's about politics. It's as simple as that. I have a strong feeling you all know it but keep perpetuating the fraud because you are too far down the rabbit hole of fabricated outrage. Frankly, it's disgusting. 

I guess now we know we'll get some form of gun control when a Democrat can be blamed for a mass shooting against a US ambassador (because they're the only people who apparently matter...)

Quote:Ah you only care about Americans being killed abroad when they are Ambassadors. No one else calls for outrage from the star spangled right. I am not even remotely surprised by that. A time will come when you all just admit (like McCarthy did) accidentally what is true but not yet. The outrage is phony and directed at a particular person you dislike. If it was anything else there would be million spent on investigations like this one for the ones that were listed for the sake of justice for the murdered Americans. You don't because it's not about justice, it's about politics. It's as simple as that. I have a strong feeling you all know it but keep perpetuating the fraud because you are too far down the rabbit hole of fabricated outrage. Frankly, it's disgusting. 

 

I think you're wrong that we don't care about others being killed. The outrage in this is that such a high level official was killed, while begging for hours for assistance, and then the Administration scapegoated an American citizen rather than come out and say the truth, that Stevens and the others were killed by Islamic terrorists during another skirmish in the War on the West. I'm angry at the Right that they've turned this into an ineffective circus.

Quote:I guess now we know we'll get some form of gun control when a Democrat can be blamed for a mass shooting against a US ambassador (because they're the only people who apparently matter...)

 

I strongly support extreme gun control laws for Islamic radicals.

Quote:I think you're wrong that we don't care about others being killed. The outrage in this is that such a high level official was killed, while begging for hours for assistance, and then the Administration scapegoated an American citizen rather than come out and say the truth, that Stevens and the others were killed by Islamic terrorists during another skirmish in the War on the West. I'm angry at the Right that they've turned this into an ineffective circus.

Well.. maybe if there was anything that remotely resembled outrage when the other 69 Americans were killed and 64 Americans were wounded in similar attacks, it would ring more true. But there wasn't anything of the sort under someone else's watch. Once it became Obama/Hillary, and after a $128M cut in funding to protect embassies and consulates, all of a sudden politicians seem to care.

Quote:Well.. maybe if there was anything that remotely resembled outrage when the other 69 Americans were killed and 64 Americans were wounded in similar attacks, it would ring more true. But there wasn't anything of the sort under someone else's watch. Once it became Obama/Hillary, and after a $128M cut in funding to protect embassies and consulates, all of a sudden politicians seem to care.

I kind of understand the point about the film maker. I get being upset over misdirection/deflection whether perceived or real. After all the hearings/investigations, It's the only part that I understand.  

Quote:Ah you only care about Americans being killed abroad when they are Ambassadors. No one else calls for outrage from the star spangled right. I am not even remotely surprised by that. A time will come when you all just admit (like McCarthy did) accidentally what is true but not yet. The outrage is phony and directed at a particular person you dislike. If it was anything else there would be million spent on investigations like this one for the ones that were listed for the sake of justice for the murdered Americans. You don't because it's not about justice, it's about politics. It's as simple as that. I have a strong feeling you all know it but keep perpetuating the fraud because you are too far down the rabbit hole of fabricated outrage. Frankly, it's disgusting. 

Hmm...why open a can of worms. We can go back and try to impeach Cheney, Rummy et al.  Maybe I've been uninformed or not listening enough, but the invasion and deaths in Iraq is usually the comeback from "the other side". 

Millions have been spent on this Benghazi investigation..Millions. Its a terrible loss and hopefully a lesson learned. Certainly no one can claim that no one cared. But it does seem like the redundancy of this is making it look like a witchhunt; and it may have backfired since her poll numbers went up after the hearings..

 

But I must ask..is this Oswald Cobblepots doppleganger

 

Quote:Well.. maybe if there was anything that remotely resembled outrage when the other 69 Americans were killed and 64 Americans were wounded in similar attacks, it would ring more true. But there wasn't anything of the sort under someone else's watch. Once it became Obama/Hillary, and after a $128M cut in funding to protect embassies and consulates, all of a sudden politicians seem to care.

 

The other issue with your position is that those attacks you listed occurred during the live action in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of American deaths abroad when Benghazi happened were nowhere near what was going on back then, and we were, for better or worse, accustomed to Americans being killed abroad by Islamic radicals. The security measures are one issue, but the outrage comes because Obama or Clinton could've just said "the terrorists did it" and we would've all understood, but that didn't fit their narrative so they lied.

Quote:The other issue with your position is that those attacks you listed occurred during the live action in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of American deaths abroad when Benghazi happened were nowhere near what was going on back then, and we were, for better or worse, accustomed to Americans being killed abroad by Islamic radicals. The security measures are one issue, but the outrage comes because Obama or Clinton could've just said "the terrorists did it" and we would've all understood, but that didn't fit their narrative so they lied.

Yes. These attacks took place during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were actually in either of those countries. There was no political outcry to protect our embassies and consulates despite these attacks. Maybe, as you suggest, we did just get used to it. Casualties of war.. so why the feigned outrage after all these attacks when the accusers are the ones who voted to slash funding, exposing our risk of attack? I agree that they could have simply said it was a terrorist attack, but I don't know that doing so would have done anything to prevent the finger pointing, name calling circus of an investigation we got afterwards.

Quote:Yes. These attacks took place during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were actually in either of those countries. There was no political outcry to protect our embassies and consulates despite these attacks. Maybe, as you suggest, we did just get used to it. Casualties of war.. so why the feigned outrage after all these attacks when the accusers are the ones who voted to slash funding, exposing our risk of attack? I agree that they could have simply said it was a terrorist attack, but I don't know that doing so would have done anything to prevent the finger pointing, name calling circus of an investigation we got afterwards.

 

I personally would probably have been more understanding had they not lied to protect the election. It's not the crime, it's the cover up. What's going on in these hearings now though? I'm really not for it.

Quote:The other issue with your position is that those attacks you listed occurred during the live action in Iraq and Afghanistan. The number of American deaths abroad when Benghazi happened were nowhere near what was going on back then, and we were, for better or worse, accustomed to Americans being killed abroad by Islamic radicals. The security measures are one issue, but the outrage comes because Obama or Clinton could've just said "the terrorists did it" and we would've all understood, but that didn't fit their narrative so they lied.

Depressing fact of the day

What is really sad is that most Americans don't know who we are fighting anymore.  All of the different names that have been used over the years are actually the same group of people.  The PLO, Hezbollah, Al-Quieda, Taliban, Iranian/Iraqi Guard, ISIS, ISIL, etc. are the same people.  This group has been in the Middle East for years, and they take on or create a new name simply for the propaganda aspect (media).

 

Another thing that is sad is what this group does to it's own people.  In trying to control this mess by mainly the Russians and the U.S., many arms/weapons are constantly shipped into the region as well as tools, materials and instructions for obtaining more deadly weapons.  This is being done not only by both "super powers", but other countries as well.

 

This has been going on for years and still continues to go on.

 

Remember when the American Embassy was taken over in Iran after the Sha was run out of the country?

 

Remember when the Marine Barracks was attacked in Beirut?

 

Remember when the Iranian airliner was accidentally shot down over the Persian Gulf?  Why was the USS Vincennes engaged in a battle?

 

Remember when Pan Am flight 103 was shot down over Lockerbie Scotland?

 

Remember the war that broke out between Iraq and Iran?

 

These are just the "highlights" that most people alive during that time will remember.  The common denominator in each of these incidents was the work of radical Islamist fundamentalists.  Fast-forward just a few years and we are caught up in Desert Storm.  Not too long after that we have the attacks on 9/11.  In between we had several other attacks on us, all the work of the same people.

 

Fast-forward again to going back into Iraq after 9/11.  It was speculated that "weapons of mass destruction" were there, but also during that time it was speculated that such weapons were possibly moved into Syria.  What's going on in Syria today?

 

I personally find it disturbing that our own Government, specifically the State Department didn't have better security in the region, even after it was asked for.  The question is WHY?  Especially since they had prior warning.   In an online posting, al-Qaeda stated its intent to attack the Red Cross
, the British
, and then the Americans
in Benghazi.

 

May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) hits the Benghazi offices of the International Red Cross
and the agency decides to pull out.

June 11, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hit a convoy carrying the British ambassador in Benghazi.
The U.K. pulled out of Benghazi.

September 11, 2012: The embassy is attacked and the State Department as well as the current regime says that it was a "spontaneous protest over a youtube video".

 

Those are facts and the reason why this is a big deal.

Quote:But you didn't ask a direct question. You went on a disconnected spiel of "liberal lies" and "changing talking points" while wholly ignoring 13 other embassy or consulate attacks which nobody seemed to care about.

 

lol.  I asked for the name of an ambassador that was killed in the last 36 years and or an instance that the bush administration blamed social media.  You tried valiantly and failed.  The simple objective fact that neither instance has occurred should be self evident why this particular instance is receiving special attention.  

 

As to playing politics, that is laughable.  It was the democrats (Clinton and Obama) that dragged us into this mess.  Lybia was their baby.  The idea that al queda was decimated was key to the Presidents re-election and Clinton's legacy as secretary of State, this instance objectively demonstrates that they made decisions based purely on advancing their political narrative no matter how dangerous and tragically lethal the situation on the ground became.  Then when the unthinkable (yet predictable) happened instead of taking responsibility for their actions they doubled down on their partisan bend and advanced a totally false narrative out of whole cloth to demonize an American who was half way around the world when this all happened because of a video that the terrorists never saw.  

 

The idea that the secretary of state would stand over the bodies of the fallen and tell families that had made the ultimate sacrifice "Don't you worry we're going to get the guy who made that awful video" is sickening.  Anyone who can't see that is far more biased than Kevin McCarthy.  

Quote:The idea that the secretary of state would stand over the bodies of the fallen and tell families that had made the ultimate sacrifice "Don't you worry we're going to get the guy who made that awful video" is sickening.  Anyone who can't see that is far more biased than Kevin McCarthy.  

Hillary Clinton made up a story about what killed a few people.

 

George W. Bush, [BAD WORD REMOVED] Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made up a story that's killed 4,493 Americans (7,470 is also an acceptable number) and counting and destabilized an entire region--which is pretty much what they wanted to do and manipulated events to accommodate from the second they took office, so yeah, forgive me if I don't rush out to lynch Hillary Clinton over this.

Quote:Hillary Clinton made up a story about what killed a few people.

 

George W. Bush, [BAD WORD REMOVED] Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made up a story that's killed 4,493 Americans (7,470 is also an acceptable number) and counting and destabilized an entire region--which is pretty much what they wanted to do and manipulated events to accommodate from the second they took office, so yeah, forgive me if I don't rush out to lynch Hillary Clinton over this.

"My brother kept us safe!!!!!"

Quote:lol. I asked for the name of an ambassador that was killed in the last 36 years and or an instance that the bush administration blamed social media. You tried valiantly and failed. The simple objective fact that neither instance has occurred should be self evident why this particular instance is receiving special attention.


As to playing politics, that is laughable. It was the democrats (Clinton and Obama) that dragged us into this mess. Lybia was their baby. The idea that al queda was decimated was key to the Presidents re-election and Clinton's legacy as secretary of State, this instance objectively demonstrates that they made decisions based purely on advancing their political narrative no matter how dangerous and tragically lethal the situation on the ground became. Then when the unthinkable (yet predictable) happened instead of taking responsibility for their actions they doubled down on their partisan bend and advanced a totally false narrative out of whole cloth to demonize an American who was half way around the world when this all happened because of a video that the terrorists never saw.


The idea that the secretary of state would stand over the bodies of the fallen and tell families that had made the ultimate sacrifice "Don't you worry we're going to get the guy who made that awful video" is sickening. Anyone who can't see that is far more biased than Kevin McCarthy.

Wow. Did you major in revisionist history in college? And I just love the parameters you set in your arguments. How many ambassadors were killed where a politician blamed social media? Social media has been a major part of people's lives for how many presidents terms? You sure showed me. Your post is forcing me to rethink everything I know about myself. I'm asking myself questions like.. why do you continue to debate a guy who doesn't read anything you type, who can only sometimes formulate a rational post, who accuses you of lying if he doesn't like where an argument is going and who can never accept that he is wrong, even when his argument on a subject is shredded to dust.

Quote:My argument on this subject is that there was a huge failure of leadership, and an attempt to cover up said failure.  This cover up and failure occurred during our current administration, and the "apparent" candidate of the Democrat party was involved in this.

 

How anybody can support a candidate that made so many mistakes when it comes to this issue, and then clearly lied about it is beyond me.

 

They often say its not the act but the cover up that's important.


HIlary Clinton (running for president) is an attorney her whole life prior to being the former President's wife and later politican.  She knew the law more than most, yet she willing broke it as head of Dept of State on many accounts from sharing classified information with foriegn nationals (treason used to be punished by death, and I think it still is)... she willing lied to the american people knowing that the attacks on Benghazi had nothing to do with some video or whatever lie they put out to the public... as demonstrated by her admitting that she had emailed her family the truth that it was a terrorist attack a day before she lied to the american people!


She is a liar, a traitor, and killed those people... how any idiot could vote for her as President is beyond me..

Quote:She is a liar, a traitor, and killed those people... how any idiot could vote for her as President is beyond me..

I'll give you she is a liar. They all are. They're politicians. Traitor? Nah. Killed those people? You jumped the shark with that one.


As for your vote. I think people would have grounds to call you an idiot for voting for any of these candidates for one reason or another.