Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 226

Thread: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists[W:130]

  1. #171
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    What did she mean when she stood in front of four caskets and told the parents that their sons died because of a YouTube video when she knew that was untrue.
    I'm curious as to when this was. The only thing I'm aware of was the short speech she gave at Andrews Air Force base. In that speech, which I will source for you, she said nothing of the sort. When did she stand in front of caskets and tell parents their son died because of a YouTube video knowing it was untrue?

    Link to her speech when the coffins returned: Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya

    What did she mean when she told those parents and other family members that she would make sure the author of that video would go to jail.
    Umm, didn't the person go to jail? Obviously it was for other reasons, but didn't he go to jail?

    What about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ??
    Hasn't that promise been made by all sorts of people already?

    And you defend her by crying "context" ?? You're right... that's just stupid. Your partisanship is on stage for everyone to see.
    My partisanship? You just created a post which likely contains an untruth, a statement Hillary was correct on and asking about a promise which has been made by many people already and using that to criticize Hillary.

    I don't think it's my partisanship which is an issue here.
    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    I never said I had objectivity.
    That remark was to mac, but it's pretty obvious you're not interested in truth. That has been apparent for a while.

    These are my opinions and I'm free to enjoy them as much as I like.
    As the old saying goes, you're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You're trying to claim falsehoods as fact and then wrap them with the word "opinion" to justify a hatred of someone based on their political party. It's asinine.

    You seeem quite fixated on being called a liar
    No, I'm quite fixated on you apologizing for calling me a liar, like you said you would. You still haven't apologized, which I guess would make YOU the liar.

    I'm quite certain neither opinion is completely accurate
    I'm quite certain my opinion of myself is far more credible than the opinion of someone who clearly is not interested in any facts which get in the way.

    but you have done nothing but show far left leanings
    The fact you think taking words in context indicates "far left leanings" cracks me up.

    I don't know why that hurts you so much? I don't care either.
    Hurts me? No, it doesn't hurt. It's just false and you said you'd apologize for the personal attack, which you still haven't done. I guess that makes you the liar then.

    Your view of context of hilda's "what difference does it make" statement is your opinion.
    No, no it's not. It's a simple statement of fact, a statement you're not interested in because of your "far right extremist leanings".
    I find your opinion distasteful, irrelevent and possibly even damaging upon the nation.
    So understanding the true context of words is distasteful, irrelevant and damaging upon the country, but politically based lies and name-calling isn't? You have extremely strange beliefs.

    If our society is to accept your view
    You mean my view which is consistent with what she said?

    (which in my opinion is nothing but more political spin to protect the hildabeast)
    Context is political spin, but proudly proclaiming your ignorance to protect your team isn't? Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

    extremism at each and every point I can.
    The fact you think putting words into context is extremism says a lot about you. If you didn't make me laugh so much, I would have given you up for as a hopeless case of mindless politically motivated sheep bleating long ago.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 05-14-14 at 04:47 PM.

  2. #172
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You've proven you have no objectivity on this issue.
    Let's see.

    She ignored indications that more security was necessary, denied more security, failed to respond to an attack, lied about the info concerning the attack, gave a fake reason for the attack, sent an underling to the lions to face questions about the attack, and isn't much interested in figuring out why the attack happened or who attacked us.

    Yeah, it's my objectivity that is in question.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  3. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    I'm certainly not interested in your partisan opinion as "truth."

    You keep stating your opinion as fact. To, honestly, that makes you dangerous. Anyone who believes their opinion is the "fact" (a word you use routinely along with "truth") is someone I wish to have nothing to do with on an anonymous forum. You really should look hard in to the mirror before passing your opinion off as truth and fact - its shameful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I'm curious as to when this was. The only thing I'm aware of was the short speech she gave at Andrews Air Force base. In that speech, which I will source for you, she said nothing of the sort. When did she stand in front of caskets and tell parents their son died because of a YouTube video knowing it was untrue?

    Link to her speech when the coffins returned: Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya

    Umm, didn't the person go to jail? Obviously it was for other reasons, but didn't he go to jail?

    Hasn't that promise been made by all sorts of people already?

    My partisanship? You just created a post which likely contains an untruth, a statement Hillary was correct on and asking about a promise which has been made by many people already and using that to criticize Hillary.

    I don't think it's my partisanship which is an issue here.
    That remark was to mac, but it's pretty obvious you're not interested in truth. That has been apparent for a while.

    As the old saying goes, you're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You're trying to claim falsehoods as fact and then wrap them with the word "opinion" to justify a hatred of someone based on their political party. It's asinine.

    No, I'm quite fixated on you apologizing for calling me a liar, like you said you would. You still haven't apologized, which I guess would make YOU the liar.

    I'm quite certain my opinion of myself is far more credible than the opinion of someone who clearly is not interested in any facts which get in the way.

    The fact you think taking words in context indicates "far left leanings" cracks me up.

    Hurts me? No, it doesn't hurt. It's just false and you said you'd apologize for the personal attack, which you still haven't done. I guess that makes you the liar then.

    No, no it's not. It's a simple statement of fact, a statement you're not interested in because of your "far right extremist leanings".
    So understanding the true context of words is distasteful, irrelevant and damaging upon the country, but politically based lies and name-calling isn't? You have extremely strange beliefs.

    You mean my view which is consistent with what she said?

    Context is political spin, but proudly proclaiming your ignorance to protect your team isn't? Seriously, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

    The fact you think putting words into context is extremism says a lot about you. If you didn't make me laugh so much, I would have given you up for as a hopeless case of mindless politically motivated sheep bleating long ago.

  4. #174
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I'm curious as to when this was. The only thing I'm aware of was the short speech she gave at Andrews Air Force base. In that speech, which I will source for you, she said nothing of the sort. When did she stand in front of caskets and tell parents their son died because of a YouTube video knowing it was untrue?

    Link to her speech when the coffins returned: Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya
    You should read the transcript you linked to:

    We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.
    Clinton knew she was lying when she said this. The State Department sent emails to the Libyan government within hours of the attack informing them that Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.

    In addition:

    This makes two parents of men killed in Benghazi who’ve claimed that Hillary told them personally that the video was the prime mover in the attack. Tyrone Woods’s father went a step further and alleged that she vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested and prosecuted” — which, courtesy of California authorities, is what ended up happening.
    Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame « Hot Air

    Speaking to the “Lars Larson Show,” father of Seal Tyrone Woods — who died in Benghazi defending the consulate annex — shared his experience of meeting President Obama and Secretary Clinton at the memorial service for the fallen heroes a few days after the attack. Charles Woods said Obama “couldn’t look me in the eye” and “mumbled” an “I’m sorry”. He said Secretary Clinton assured him that they were going to “arrest and prosecute” the man that made the scapegoated youtube video critical of Allah… Which had nothing to do with the 9-11 terror attack in Benghazi.
    Fallen SEALs Father: Hillary Told Me at Funeral “We’re Going to Arrest and Prosecute” the YouTube Director (Video) | The Gateway Pundit




    Umm, didn't the person go to jail? Obviously it was for other reasons, but didn't he go to jail?
    Yes he did, which is another injustice. The man went to jail for a petty parole violation because he accessed a computer. We all know he actually went to jail because the administration insisted he be punished one way or the other. I understand he is finally out of jail now.

    Hasn't that promise been made by all sorts of people already?
    Yes, primarily by Clinton and Obama, yet they've not lifted a finger to actually do anything. The man involved in the attack was interviewed by television at a coffee shop in broad daylight, yet our folks can't find him??

    My partisanship? You just created a post which likely contains an untruth, a statement Hillary was correct on and asking about a promise which has been made by many people already and using that to criticize Hillary.

    I don't think it's my partisanship which is an issue here.
    It is obvious who the untruths came from here.

  5. #175
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Doug Ross @ Journal: DAMNING: The Complete Benghazi Timeline Spreadsheet [Updated]

    Check the link for the updated timeline ... I've had the one below sitting around for a while ... the essentials are the same.

    Benghazi timeline - frame 1.jpg
    Benghazi timeline - frame 2.jpg
    Benghazi timeline - frame 3.jpg
    Last edited by bubbabgone; 05-15-14 at 09:52 AM.

  6. #176
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Let's see.

    She ignored indications that more security was necessary
    It was lost in the bureaucracy of government, but yes, you're not wrong about this in general.

    denied more security
    She didn't, that's been established. Furthermore, Stevens twice refused security.

    failed to respond to an attack
    That's not her job. Secretaries of state don't engage active military personnel. Furthermore, the attack WAS responded to. The 4 man team from the Annex (and the Libyan security team) responded to the attack at the consulate and the 6 man team from Tripoli responded to the situation as well.

    lied about the info concerning the attack, gave a fake reason for the attack
    She repeated what the intelligence had initially told her, which we now know was wrong.

    sent an underling to the lions to face questions about the attack
    This is just a lie, and such an obvious one I don't know why you said it. The whole "what difference does it make" quote came from her Congressional testimony.

    and isn't much interested in figuring out why the attack happened or who attacked us.
    Except we all know now who and why, so it would seem kind of stupid at this point to still be asking questions.

    Like I said, you obviously have no ability to be objective on this issue.

    Yeah, it's my objectivity that is in question.
    It is, as evident by this very post.
    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    I'm certainly not interested in your partisan opinion as "truth."
    You don't seem to understand that context is not opinion, it's truth. You've already admitted you're proudly ignorant of the context, so the only one being partisan here is you.

    To, honestly, that makes you dangerous.
    No, people who willfully ignore context in order to push their political agenda, regardless of the facts, are the dangerous ones. People who parse words and meanings accurately and as they were intended are the ones who preserve the liberty in this country.

    Anyone who believes their opinion is the "fact" (a word you use routinely along with "truth") is someone I wish to have nothing to do with on an anonymous forum.
    I'm not passing my opinion as fact, I'm passing facts as facts. Just because you're ignorant to them, it doesn't make them any less true.

    By the way, you still haven't apologized. Does this mean you lied when you said you would?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    You should read the transcript you linked to:

    Clinton knew she was lying when she said this. The State Department sent emails to the Libyan government within hours of the attack informing them that Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.


    No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.

    You are 100% wrong.

    Yes he did, which is another injustice. The man went to jail for a petty parole violation because he accessed a computer.
    It's an injustice he violated the law and was punished in the manner he knew he'd be punished?

    You don't really understand things very well, now do you?

    We all know he actually went to jail because the administration insisted he be punished one way or the other.
    Most likely. Doesn't change the fact he was the one violated the law.

    Yes, primarily by Clinton and Obama, yet they've not lifted a finger to actually do anything.
    Wait, wait, wait...let's go back...You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    What about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ??
    And now you're saying Clinton has promised them that!

    Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.

    It is obvious who the untruths came from here.
    Yes, yes it very much is. It came from the person who falsely attributed to Hillary something she didn't say and then later tried to criticize Hillary for something you now say she's done.

    You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 05-16-14 at 11:35 AM.

  7. #177
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    No, YOU should read the transcript I linked to. She said American EMBASSIES were the target of rage and violence because of the video, which was 100% true. But the attack in Benghazi was at the CONSULATE, not the EMBASSY.

    You are 100% wrong.
    So you are now claiming she wasn't even talking about the Benghazi attack at a memorial service for the victims ???? That's funny.

    It's an injustice he violated the law and was punished in the manner he knew he'd be punished?

    You don't really understand things very well, now do you?

    Most likely. Doesn't change the fact he was the one violated the law.
    I know you libs don't mind using anything available to get back at people that disagree with you, but it's really quite disgusting that you admit that the Obama administration used this man as a scapegoat, yet don't see anything wrong with it.

    I guess you see nothing wrong with Clinton, Kerry, and Obama not lifting a finger to keep hundreds of murderers and child molesters from being deported either and then simply releasing them.

    Wait, wait, wait...let's go back...You said:

    And now you're saying Clinton has promised them that!

    Good job on exposing yourself as just another person interested in mindless political attacks. When you thought you could attack her for not making a promise you did, and when you realized you had to say she made a promise, you still twisted that to attack her. You people crack me up. Never interested in the truth, only political spin.

    Yes, yes it very much is. It came from the person who falsely attributed to Hillary something she didn't say and then later tried to criticize Hillary for something you now say she's done.

    You're right, it's VERY obvious from whom the untruths come.
    You need to actually read what was written instead of what you want it to say, because your comments make no sense. Clinton promised to jail the American that posted a video, but nothing about getting the ones responsible for killing four Americans. True to her promise, the Californian went to jail, while the men responsible for the actual murders sat in a coffee shop giving interviews to American television stations.

    Pitiful. Twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend this travesty is not flattering.

  8. #178
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    I think a lot of people share your stance.



    The bolded is what the Republican congress should be convening a committee on, instead of the umpteenth witch hunting expedition and raising political contributions on the deaths of these honorable Americans.
    What do you call it when the "hunt" reveals that there really are witches?

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  9. #179
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    So you are now claiming she wasn't even talking about the Benghazi attack at a memorial service for the victims ???? That's funny.


    I know it sucked to see just how wrong you were, but your transparent attempt at a strawman was pathetic. You said Clinton, in front of the four caskets (at the memorial) claimed their deaths was the result of the video. I proved direct evidence Clinton said no such thing. Clinton clearly separated out the attack in Benghazi from the hate and violence over the video which was seen at various embassies. Anyone with a modicum of honesty would see the difference.

    Just admit what we both already know. You were wrong. Just say it, it'll feel good.

    I know you libs
    I'm not a lib. I'm just someone who cares about the truth. Out of curiosity, why don't you care more about the truth?

    don't mind using anything available to get back at people that disagree with you, but it's really quite disgusting that you admit that the Obama administration used this man as a scapegoat, yet don't see anything wrong with it.
    What's disgusting is when you "non-truthers" make claims which are obviously false, because you hate the fact you're wrong.

    I never said it was right to make someone a scapegoat for something they weren't. What I have said is the man DID break the law and DID pay the penalty for breaking the law. Regardless of whether he had ever made a movie or not, he broke the law, he should pay the consequences, regardless of why he was brought to the front of media attention. Furthermore, this man DID create a video which offended people in the Middle East and which did incite riots, so it's not like he's an innocent victim being the scapegoat either. It's simply that his video doesn't appear to be the motivation behind this particular attack at the consulate.

    I guess you see nothing wrong with Clinton, Kerry, and Obama not lifting a finger to keep hundreds of murderers and child molesters from being deported either and then simply releasing them.
    I guess you don't know what it means to stay on topic, even when you're making provably false statements.

    You need to actually read what was written instead of what you want it to say, because your comments make no sense. Clinton promised to jail the American that posted a video, but nothing about getting the ones responsible for killing four Americans. True to her promise, the Californian went to jail, while the men responsible for the actual murders sat in a coffee shop giving interviews to American television stations.

    Pitiful. Twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend this travesty is not flattering.
    Oh Gill, once more it's YOU who needs to read what is actually written. I'll help you out, because you obviously need it. Here were the posts regarding this particular exchange.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    What about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ?
    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Hasn't that promise been made by all sorts of people already?
    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Yes, primarily by Clinton and Obama, yet they've not lifted a finger to actually do anything.
    You know, it's one thing to be blatantly partisan to the point where you post provably untrue things, it's something else all together to be incapable of following a thread of discussion and then falsely criticize another for reading comprehension issues.

  10. #180
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post


    I know it sucked to see just how wrong you were, but your transparent attempt at a strawman was pathetic. You said Clinton, in front of the four caskets (at the memorial) claimed their deaths was the result of the video. I proved direct evidence Clinton said no such thing. Clinton clearly separated out the attack in Benghazi from the hate and violence over the video which was seen at various embassies. Anyone with a modicum of honesty would see the difference.


    Just admit what we both already know. You were wrong. Just say it, it'll feel good.
    What sucks is your lazy attempt to emulate your other idol, Billy. Want to debate the meaning of "is" now ??

    Very sad.

    One last point on your lie.... who is in charge of U.S. Consulates ??? Could it be the State Department. Who was in charge of the State Department.

    A consulate is part of an embassy. The consul in a country reports to the Ambassador. An embassy is located in a country's capital, consulates are scattered around the country. Your attempt to claim she was not talking about Benghazi in a memorial for the Americans killed in Benghazi is disgusting.

    I'm not a lib. I'm just someone who cares about the truth. Out of curiosity, why don't you care more about the truth?
    then why don't you start by telling the truth.


    I never said it was right to make someone a scapegoat for something they weren't. What I have said is the man DID break the law and DID pay the penalty for breaking the law. Regardless of whether he had ever made a movie or not, he broke the law, he should pay the consequences, regardless of why he was brought to the front of media attention. Furthermore, this man DID create a video which offended people in the Middle East and which did incite riots, so it's not like he's an innocent victim being the scapegoat either. It's simply that his video doesn't appear to be the motivation behind this particular attack at the consulate.

    I guess you don't know what it means to stay on topic, even when you're making provably false statements.
    Another denial.


    Oh Gill, once more it's YOU who needs to read what is actually written. I'll help you out, because you obviously need it. Here were the posts regarding this particular exchange.


    You know, it's one thing to be blatantly partisan to the point where you post provably untrue things, it's something else all together to be incapable of following a thread of discussion and then falsely criticize another for reading comprehension issues.
    You should really try reading the posts instead of contorting them to meet your political wishes. I said Clinton told the parents that she would make sure the video author would be taken care of. She never told them directly that day that she or anyone else would bring the murderers to justice. Of course, both her and Obama made empty promises AFTER the memorial that the murderers would be taken care of, then never lifted a finger to actually do it.

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •