Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Failure... Gross negligence and deception. See how the terms are different?

Yeah. It's how you spin it.


Were Rumsfeld or Rice grossly negligent or not entirely truthful about any of these other attacks? They certainly had more funding to thwart them. One could argue they were not equipped for their jobs or might withhold certain details about what really went down in these other cases to protect themselves or others on what they knew beforehand or during the attacks. But nobody spent Julius Thomas money to investigate these instances to find out. So we may never know.

No.... Its how hilary clinton tried to spin it.

Quote:No.... Its how hilary clinton tried to spin it.

An example of your "fetishistic obsession with moral relativism?"


(Nope.. doesn't make me sound smarter either.)

Thats not moral relativism, its a proven factual conclusion.

The GOP led House Intelligence committee cleared her of wrong doing a year ago, but you know best.

Before all the evidence was presented? Well that settles everything huh?

Quote:Before all the evidence was presented? Well that settles everything huh?

Yup.

Well.. in fairness they only had two years and millions of dollars at their disposal.

Well in fairness the woman is under federal investigation for keeping pertinent material in an off site server in some kids bathroom.

Its amazing how far some will go to try and make up for what has been demonstorablt proven to be a cover up.

You keep going back to this argument that I claim Hillary is squeaky clean and not responsible for these lives lost when I am repeatedly saying I am NOT saying she necessarily told the whole truth and IS responsible, by the nature of her title of the time, for these lives lost.


I think that's called shadowboxing.


As for your use of the word "proven" in the above comment... I would ask by who? Even the court of public opinion is split on this. You can equate her being cleared a year ago to be similar to the OJ not guilty verdict if you like. But she was still cleared.


What I take issue with is the selective prosecution of this situation. Almost 70 people killed in similar fashion and there was barely a blip on the national radar. If there was a mention, it was a somber one. Not blind outrage against Rumsfeld or Condi for the loss of American lives. Not blame assigned or special committees formed to investigate. Were they not responsible for this loss of American lives under their watch too? You can't cry foul for one and ignore the other.

Quote:You keep going back to this argument that I claim Hillary is squeaky clean and not responsible for these lives lost when I am repeatedly saying I am NOT saying she necessarily told the whole truth and IS responsible, by the nature of her title of the time, for these lives lost.


I think that's called shadowboxing.


As for your use of the word "proven" in the above comment... I would ask by who? Even the court of public opinion is split on this. You can equate her being cleared a year ago to be similar to the OJ not guilty verdict if you like. But she was still cleared.


What I take issue with is the selective prosecution of this situation. Almost 70 people killed in similar fashion and there was barely a blip on the national radar. If there was a mention, it was a somber one. Not blind outrage against Rumsfeld or Condi for the loss of American lives. Not blame assigned or special committees formed to investigate. Were they not responsible for this loss of American lives under their watch too? You can't cry foul for one and ignore the other.

 

As far as I know there is no "prosecution," selective or otherwise, of Hillary. Her failure to prevent Benghazi wasn't a crime. I don't think lying about it being a response to a video is a crime, either, but those lies should certainly be brought into the light. New evidence gleaned from the E-mails she failed to delete have shed more light on this which is why there is a new investigation.


 

Investigation, not "prosecution."


 

Is putting up some guy as a scapegoat and imprisoning him while knowing his video wasn't responsible a crime? Probably not, but it should be. I don't think Hillary is the one responsible there either, that was probably Eric Holder. But Hillary knew he was innocent and let him be arrested anyway.


 

As I said before, her biggest crime was selling US policy to foreign governments, but that's almost impossible to prove.


 

What may actually be a provable crime was Hillary's private E-mail server and her disregard for classified information. Lots of lower level people have been fired, lost their pensions, or worse for mere hints of such carelessness. But Hillary is a prominent Dem. She could commit murder and still remain above the law.

Quote:As far as I know there is no "prosecution," selective or otherwise, of Hillary. Her failure to prevent Benghazi wasn't a crime. I don't think lying about it being a response to a video is a crime, either, but those lies should certainly be brought into the light. New evidence gleaned from the E-mails she failed to delete have shed more light on this which is why there is a new investigation.


 

Investigation, not "prosecution."


 

Is putting up some guy as a scapegoat and imprisoning him while knowing his video wasn't responsible a crime? Probably not, but it should be. I don't think Hillary is the one responsible there either, that was probably Eric Holder. But Hillary knew he was innocent and let him be arrested anyway.


 

As I said before, her biggest crime was selling US policy to foreign governments, but that's almost impossible to prove.


 

What may actually be a provable crime was Hillary's private E-mail server and her disregard for classified information. Lots of lower level people have been fired, lost their pensions, or worse for mere hints of such carelessness. But Hillary is a prominent Dem politician/wealthy person. She could commit murder and still remain above the law.

FTFY

Oh no i know what your point is, nothing to see here business as usual. Thats demonstorably false.


1.) the death of an american ambassador. First time in 36 years. Thats unique to this situation.


2.) gross self evident negligence in the wake of verifiable warning intelligence and previous acts of violence causing another country to pull their delegation.


3.) an insulting cover up that blamed SOCIAL MEDIA.


there is no similarly situated incident that you have refrenced or can refrence hence how syckophantic and pathetic your argument looks.

Quote: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

 

 

 

I love Gowdy, but I have to admit...


 

He totally looks like Cobblepot.

Quote:I'll give you she is a liar. They all are.

 

 

This is the lamest excuse ever.

Quote:Trying to deflect and change the conversation?  This isn't about President Bush, it's about Hillary Clinton and when she was Secretary of State.

 

Exactly. Their best defense is to say, "But, but, but Bush..."


 

 

Quote:How can you continue to harp on Hillary without acknowledging what Bush did? He knew an attack was coming, did nothing to stop it (negligently or wilfully), then acted like it was a complete surprise and outrage.


The difference is that Hillary Clinton did not use Benghazi to strip Americans of their rights and start two wars that, conveniently, were great for the companies that key members of that administration has a stake in. It's not deflection; it's a valid question. How can you ride Hillary into the ground over Benghazi with a straight face while not demanding to know why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld played a key role in allowing 9/11 to happen and realized great personal gains as a result of it?

 

 

Oh come on...it's not even close to the same thing. Bush may have had an idea some kind of terrorist act could happen, but what are you suggesting they should have done?

Quote:Yeah. It's how you spin it.


Were Rumsfeld or Rice grossly negligent or not entirely truthful about any of these other attacks? They certainly had more funding to thwart them. One could argue they were not equipped for their jobs or might withhold certain details about what really went down in these other cases to protect themselves or others on what they knew beforehand or during the attacks. But nobody spent Julius Thomas money to investigate these instances to find out. So we may never know.

 

 

But, but, but Bush...


 

Just stop already. Rumsfeld or Rice never came out and flatly told us a bold faced lie intentionally meant to cover up mistakes.

Quote:As far as I know there is no "prosecution," selective or otherwise, of Hillary. Her failure to prevent Benghazi wasn't a crime. I don't think lying about it being a response to a video is a crime, either, but those lies should certainly be brought into the light. New evidence gleaned from the E-mails she failed to delete have shed more light on this which is why there is a new investigation.


 

Investigation, not "prosecution."


 

Is putting up some guy as a scapegoat and imprisoning him while knowing his video wasn't responsible a crime? Probably not, but it should be. I don't think Hillary is the one responsible there either, that was probably Eric Holder. But Hillary knew he was innocent and let him be arrested anyway.


 

As I said before, her biggest crime was selling US policy to foreign governments, but that's almost impossible to prove.


 

What may actually be a provable crime was Hillary's private E-mail server and her disregard for classified information. Lots of lower level people have been fired, lost their pensions, or worse for mere hints of such carelessness. But Hillary is a prominent Dem. She could commit murder and still remain above the law.

 

 

Look... whether or not Hillary should be in jail is debatable. Whether or not she should be the POTUS shouldn't be. Her actions should not be tolerated by the American public, and yet her liberal fans just look the other way and shower her with praise because she vehemently sticks up for a woman's right to murder their unborn baby.

Quote:Oh come on...it's not even close to the same thing. Bush may have had an idea some kind of terrorist act could happen, but what are you suggesting they should have done?

Made an effort to stop it instead of wilfully allowing 3,000 people to die so they could get their pet wars, boost oil prices and pad Halliburton stock.