• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Press Got OBAMAED BABY!

Bobbaker said:
She said that within the first few hours after the attack, and walked that back within 24 hours, on tape to boot. What she said at first was speculation and she made that clear, and that is understandable considering the timing of it all at the fog of war within the first few hours. Importantly, the state department walked that back within 24 hours. Stop lying about it through your teeth - its like your life is a lie for the purpose of winning an argument.
Click to expand...
Lol. What do you feed your pet unicorn?? Here is the The Benghazi Timeline, Clinton Edition - FactCheck.org
 
Partsguy57 said:
The only way this could have had any effect on the election is if her and her own people had info in those emails that were damaging to her campaign? Either the emails showed that she was a turd and that is why you are angry that she was exposed for what she is, a turd,Or the emails showed nothing which would mean they had no effect and she got beat far and square and your pissed off about that. Either way you don't care about the truth. You only care your turd got beat and that is why you are so pissed. Hack is what you are. Lol lol just like the msm is. Cheers

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Turd? Why so angry?

The DNC was hacked....not Hillary's private server. You need to get your facts straight.
 
Partsguy57 said:
Lol. What do you feed your pet unicorn?? Here is the The Benghazi Timeline, Clinton Edition - FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

Thank you for that article. It was very useful. It brought back memories. One of which was, that state was dealing with TWO issues at the SAME time...one, the attack, and two, an unprovoked, unimpulsive inflammatory video created by white US citizens on american soil and with american actors, which was causing protests all across the muslim world and which made us look like absolute ****.

So she had to respond to two situations at the same time.

She kept things vague for a good reason. Why ? I bet you don't know.

Its the same reason why cops who issue press conferences in the aftermath of an incident, where the perpetrator has not been apprehended, keep things vague. They do not want to tip the criminals off in their investigation and hunt for them.

Hillary keeps being vague. When you have that many million hypocritical roughnecks stoked by Republicans willing to win votes paid for with our blood through impulsive, reckless wars, it pays to be vague until gross tensions die down. This is called "managing the situation".

The important thing to note is that since 911, no organised terrorist incident by professionals has ever occurred on US soil. Both Bush and Obama kept the appropriate agencies properly empowered to accomplish this. No one can be blamed for lone wolf attacks. Those are just too difficult to pick up in a large, open society. It is the price we pay for our way of life, a price we pay to ensure that the terrorists and the rednecks, don't win.
 
Bobbaker said:
Thank you for that article. It was very useful. It brought back memories. One of which was, that state was dealing with TWO issues at the SAME time...one, the attack, and two, an unprovoked, unimpulsive inflammatory video created by white US citizens on american soil and with american actors, which was causing protests all across the muslim world and which made us look like absolute ****.

So she had to respond to two situations at the same time.

She kept things vague for a good reason. Why ? I bet you don't know.

Its the same reason why cops who issue press conferences in the aftermath of an incident, where the perpetrator has not been apprehended, keep things vague. They do not want to tip the criminals off in their investigation and hunt for them.

Hillary keeps being vague. When you have that many million hypocritical roughnecks stoked by Republicans willing to win votes paid for with our blood through impulsive, reckless wars, it pays to be vague until gross tensions die down. This is called "managing the situation".

The important thing to note is that since 911, no organised terrorist incident by professionals has ever occurred on US soil. Both Bush and Obama kept the appropriate agencies properly empowered to accomplish this. No one can be blamed for lone wolf attacks. Those are just too difficult to pick up in a large, open society. It is the price we pay for our way of life, a price we pay to ensure that the terrorists and the rednecks, don't win.
Click to expand...
Lol so you admit you were wrong on the time line? What you said doesn't match what this article said.. lol

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Moot said:
Turd? Why so angry?

The DNC was hacked....not Hillary's private server. You need to get your facts straight.
Click to expand...
and where did I say her server was hacked?? You need to get your facts straight.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
It's simply amazing. First it was racists/misogynists that was the reason that Hillary lost the election. Then it was hacked voting machines/fraud in the key states. Now it is Russians hacked the DNC.

I wonder when, if ever, liberals are going to ever take responsibility for the fact that they put up an un-electable candidate. So un-electable that TRUMP was able to beat her. Trump of all people.

Want to know my take on the hacking of the DNC? I'm all for it. I am GLAD that it was done. Why? For the same reason that I support Snowden. For the same reason I gave kudos to Manning.

I mean seriously, if our government had conducted themselves with honor and honesty then what would those hacks have revealed? Nothing scandalous. This would not even have been an issue at any point in time if everyone involved had acted and conducted themselves appropriately to begin with. The fact that they didn't, and got caught at it is what has pissed off the DNC so much. They're going around trying to place the blame on everyone but where the blame actually began. With them. They are the ones at fault here. Not the Russians. They only exposed the depravity of the DNC. Most people that are not partisan hacks know this (and I'm sure even they know it also but refuse to openly admit it because their agenda is far more important than what is right). That is one of the MANY reasons that Hillary was not elected POTUS.

Hillary not being elected is the DNC's and Hillary's fault. No one elses. Stop being petulant children and own up to it. Make things right by DOING the right things. In reality you can't just talk the talk. You also have to walk the walk.
 
Partsguy57 said:
Lol so you admit you were wrong on the time line? What you said doesn't match what this article said.. lol
Click to expand...

Ok, I concede, I was wrong on the timeline. It was 4 years ago.

But I was right on the substance of the facts, which goes directly against the substance of your facts. You are saying that she explicitly lied about it to protect the president from damaging accusations that he allowed a terrorist attack to happen to US citizens somewhere. This was done to avoid adversely affecting his reelection bid.

The fact is that a. she was never explicit about anything publicly. This is statecraft. And b, once they had all the evidence required to prove beyond doubt that it was a planned terrorist incident unrelated to the video, she went public with it on Sept 21. That is fully 7 weeks before the election. So obviously she couldn't have been trying to cover things up to help the president.

You need to realise that you're not always talking to roughnecks who can only think to the intellectual equivalent of 'skin deep'. And when your arguments are flimsy, they are easily destroyed, and you look unrecoverably dumb in the aftermath. A person who is smart can make a mistake of fact. But only a person who is stupid can come to a wrong conclusion/reach a wrong judgment, when the facts are already very clear. And then to go on and rely on that bad judgment to impugn the character of our SOS...it is beyond the pale.

And bad judgment is much MUCH worse than a poor memory.
 
Bobbaker said:
Ok, I concede, I was wrong on the timeline. It was 4 years ago.

But I was right on the substance of the facts, which goes directly against the substance of your facts. You are saying that she explicitly lied about it to protect the president from damaging accusations that he allowed a terrorist attack to happen to US citizens somewhere. This was done to avoid adversely affecting his reelection bid.

The fact is that a. she was never explicit about anything publicly. This is statecraft. And b, once they had all the evidence required to prove beyond doubt that it was a planned terrorist incident unrelated to the video, she went public with it on Sept 21. That is fully 7 weeks before the election. So obviously she couldn't have been trying to cover things up to help the president.

You need to realise that you're not always talking to roughnecks who can only think to the intellectual equivalent of 'skin deep'. And when your arguments are flimsy, they are easily destroyed, and you look unrecoverably dumb in the aftermath. A person who is smart can make a mistake of fact. But only a person who is stupid can come to a wrong conclusion/reach a wrong judgment, when the facts are already very clear. And then to go on and rely on that bad judgment to impugn the character of our SOS...it is beyond the pale.

And bad judgment is much MUCH worse than a poor memory.
Click to expand...
r

Let me tell you something you and I are nothing but peons. All we can go by is what is reported. Anything past that is just pure speculation on our parts. You say " read" between the lines. That's pure speculation on you're part. I would say politicians lie all the time and that we both know is true. So is it possible she lied?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Partsguy57 said:
and where did I say her server was hacked?? You need to get your facts straight.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

None of the emails on her server had anything to do with her campaign. So if you weren't talking about her emails then what were you talking about?
 
Moot said:
None of the emails on her server had anything to do with her campaign. So if you weren't talking about her emails then what were you talking about?
Click to expand...
I was just wondering if calamity was as concerned with hillarys server and her deleted 30,000 emails as he is with this possible Russian hack. ( how secure was her server and what was in the missing emails is the question ) the so called hack was of the dnc. In other words he throws fit about the dnc hack, was he as concerned as so many others were about the security of her server as so many others were? The dnc emails are not a national security issue. Her server if it were hacked could have had national security implications. Understand?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Partsguy57 said:
I was just wondering if calamity was as concerned with hillarys server and her deleted 30,000 emails as he is with this possible Russian hack. ( how secure was her server and what was in the missing emails is the question ) the so called hack was of the dnc. In other words he throws fit about the dnc hack, was he as concerned as so many others were about the security of her server as so many others were? The dnc emails are not a national security issue. Her server if it were hacked could have had national security implications. Understand?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And the space shuttle Challenger, had it been packed with confetti, would have made for a festive tragedy.

I like to worry about things that have happened, not things that might have happened.
 
Kobie said:
And the space shuttle Challenger, had it been packed with confetti, would have made for a festive tragedy.

I like to worry about things that have happened, not things that might have happened.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point...... wise up.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Partsguy57 said:
I was just wondering if calamity was as concerned with hillarys server and her deleted 30,000 emails as he is with this possible Russian hack. ( how secure was her server and what was in the missing emails is the question ) the so called hack was of the dnc. In other words he throws fit about the dnc hack, was he as concerned as so many others were about the security of her server as so many others were? The dnc emails are not a national security issue. Her server if it were hacked could have had national security implications. Understand?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Neither Clinton's server or her emails were illegal or harmed national security.....but Russian hackers have. Do you not understand the difference?

Almost all of Hillary's work related emails were captured on the State Department server and/or recovered by the FBI. But what about the 2 million deleted emails from the Bush administration?
 
Moot said:
Neither Clinton's server or her emails were illegal or harmed national security.....but Russian hackers have. Do you not understand the difference?

Almost all of Hillary's work related emails were captured on the State Department server and/or recovered by the FBI. But what about the 2 million deleted emails from the Bush administration?
Click to expand...

Since when are we talking about bush? If those were deleted illegally they should have been gone after. As far as hillary emails go do you really think we would know if they harmed national security? If they were so harmless why did she delete 30,000. Good grief apply some common sense.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Partsguy57 said:
Didn't, only one with the issue was you as you didn't follow. Sorry can't help you there... cheers
Click to expand...

Ah, that gambit. The whole "you didn't understand my nonsensical drivel."

You must be one of the heads of the hydra. Welcome to DP. You haven't made much of an impression.
 
Kobie said:
Ah, that gambit. The whole "you didn't understand my nonsensical drivel."

You must be one of the heads of the hydra. Welcome to DP. You haven't made much of an impression.
Click to expand...
You are such a clever guy!! To bad it's only in you're own mind...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
RetiredUSN said:
Geeeeeeees!

Not one of them offered a shred of proof.
Click to expand...

I've often found that people making accusations often just puke up whatever evidence they may have, just to dissuade the offending parties.

Has it dawned upon you that they might have evidence that they aren't throwing to you like red meat to wolves? I don't know if they do or if they don't, but you're treating "they haven't told us evidence" as "there is no evidence."
 
calamity said:
The leaks were obtained illegally, by a foreign power. If that doesn't bother you because your boi won, then I know for a fact that you are no patriotic American but rather just a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

If that is true then it is sad that we had to rely on a foreign power to expose the corruption in the DNC. That bothers me. Shame on them for exposing the truth that the DNC and Clinton were coordinating against their own by-laws and that the chairperson was in cahoots with a candidate in a predetermining that same candidate. Shame on them for exposing the Clinton Campaign illegally coordinating with super Pacs and for exposing that people in the foundation were using foundation funds for expensive perks. How dare they.
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
If that is true then it is sad that we had to rely on a foreign power to expose the corruption in the DNC. That bothers me. Shame on them for exposing the truth that the DNC and Clinton were coordinating against their own by-laws and that the chairperson was in cahoots with a candidate in a predetermining a that same candidate. Shame on them for exposing the Clinton Campaign illegally coordinating with super Pacs and for exposing that people in the foundation were using foundation funds for expensive perks. How dare they.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if you'll react the same way when (and I say when, not if) a foreign power hacks the RNC to expose its seedy underbelly. After all, you've basically stated here you're perfectly fine with foreign states airing selective elements of people's dirty laundry. And if you think the RNC doesn't have a seedy underbelly, HOO BOY are you naive.
 
Kobie said:
I'm wondering if you'll react the same way when (and I say when, not if) a foreign power hacks the RNC to expose its seedy underbelly. After all, you've basically stated here you're perfectly fine with foreign states airing selective elements of people's dirty laundry. And if you think the RNC doesn't have a seedy underbelly, HOO BOY are you naive.
Click to expand...
They might be seedy, but you state it as a fact and that is you talking out your behind as you have no proof.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Obama: I handled the Russian hacks properly. It?s the media that didn?t. - Vox

I gotta go with The Professor Prick Extraordinaire in this one, though he sure failed too. These assholes in the press need to get their asses handed to them every single day till/unless they decide to get back to doing journalism. With as dishonest as they are, and judging by their work stupid too, we'll see.
Click to expand...

Is Obama delusional, thinking the media will handle anything properly?
 
Kobie said:
I'm wondering if you'll react the same way when (and I say when, not if) a foreign power hacks the RNC to expose its seedy underbelly. After all, you've basically stated here you're perfectly fine with foreign states airing selective elements of people's dirty laundry. And if you think the RNC doesn't have a seedy underbelly, HOO BOY are you naive.
Click to expand...

I would react the same way if the parties were reversed. Corruption is corruption. I also believe that the RNC has better cyber security than the DNC did. I don't believe that the RNC had a hand in eliminating any candidates so Trump could win the primaries. If you have any proof that the RNC rigged their own primaries then present it. I think it ironic that the DNC, DCCC, Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundations servers were hacked but the Democrats swear up and down that Clinton's private server was never hacked even though the FBI said it was probably hacked but they couldn't prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom