• 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!

APNewsBreak: No 'Stand Down' Order in Benghazi

I think when you ignore science and constantly go against it, you are anti science. I don't know what else to call it.

When the science has been politicized, when it has an agenda of figuring out the conclusion and then shaping the experiments to fit that conclusion, when it can't be replicated in controlled conditions, then it should be disputed. There are many theories in history that were considered "settled science" until they weren't....That's the nature of science. We are always learning more, and striving to learn more, and should. If you are going to tell me that nothing should be questioned, or debated considering mans involvement in what changes the planet is going through in terms of climate changing, if any, then I will continue to tell you that you are not arguing science at all, because science demands constant debate, and testing of theory.

As for McCain, he was better than Romney.

I don't think so...

At least MCCain once had a backbone and moral compass. I'd have voted for the old MCCain, before he sold out to the radical right.

And there it is...You liked the "Old McCain" before, you say, he "sold out" to the right....So, back in the time when conservatives were getting pissed off at him siding with liberals, and the liberal press all had a love affair with him for doing such, you liked him....So you only like those Republicans when they agree with Democrat policy and go against their own party to do demonstrate such....Hell, they might as well just change parties and be done with it...But thanks for proving what I have long said about you Joe.

Palin was his undoing though.

On that I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you think...I think that the voters were hungry for Palin and the straight forward punch she took right at liberals. Liberals immediately saw that as the threat it was, and how she was the draw at appearances, NOT McCain. McCain didn't like it, and tried to "handle" her, which divided the campaign, and gave Obama, and progressive libs the opening they needed to win....

The middle and not the left was the important group that wouldn't accept such incompetence.

You're right, but especially about the "middle"....The "incompetence" you are speaking of is that huge strategy mistake that I spoke of above...Obama should have been a breeze to defeat in '08. He was clearly NOT qualified to be President, and the vote turned into an emotional one instead of an informed one.
 
When the science has been politicized, when it has an agenda of figuring out the conclusion and then shaping the experiments to fit that conclusion, when it can't be replicated in controlled conditions, then it should be disputed. There are many theories in history that were considered "settled science" until they weren't....That's the nature of science. We are always learning more, and striving to learn more, and should. If you are going to tell me that nothing should be questioned, or debated considering mans involvement in what changes the planet is going through in terms of climate changing, if any, then I will continue to tell you that you are not arguing science at all, because science demands constant debate, and testing of theory.



I don't think so...



And there it is...You liked the "Old McCain" before, you say, he "sold out" to the right....So, back in the time when conservatives were getting pissed off at him siding with liberals, and the liberal press all had a love affair with him for doing such, you liked him....So you only like those Republicans when they agree with Democrat policy and go against their own party to do demonstrate such....Hell, they might as well just change parties and be done with it...But thanks for proving what I have long said about you Joe.



On that I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you think...I think that the voters were hungry for Palin and the straight forward punch she took right at liberals. Liberals immediately saw that as the threat it was, and how she was the draw at appearances, NOT McCain. McCain didn't like it, and tried to "handle" her, which divided the campaign, and gave Obama, and progressive libs the opening they needed to win....



You're right, but especially about the "middle"....The "incompetence" you are speaking of is that huge strategy mistake that I spoke of above...Obama should have been a breeze to defeat in '08. He was clearly NOT qualified to be President, and the vote turned into an emotional one instead of an informed one.

Yet, you accept those most directly paid to disagree. It's all the tobacco tactic all over again. Pretend there us a debate when there isn't one. When will we learn?

Better is more opinion, but the fact that MCCain once had a backbone isn't. Romeny was Obama light. Hard to beat the person you're a weaker version of.

And no, step outside your circle and find republican voters and independents who considered her a joke. Factually, the hunger you speak of was limited to those who didn't really listen to her. There's a reason she's great late night fodder. Which us another thing that hurts your cause: the more radical tend to want those who say the most silly things. Flat earth types.
 
In reality, no. There has been an issue with Central American children, but it's a stretch to blame Obama. He does, hie ER, have to address it. And being a heartless bastard, he has to consider that they are children.

In reality YES. It takes a fool to deny that.
 
Yet, you accept those most directly paid to disagree. It's all the tobacco tactic all over again. Pretend there us a debate when there isn't one. When will we learn?

Better is more opinion, but the fact that MCCain once had a backbone isn't. Romeny was Obama light. Hard to beat the person you're a weaker version of.

And no, step outside your circle and find republican voters and independents who considered her a joke. Factually, the hunger you speak of was limited to those who didn't really listen to her. There's a reason she's great late night fodder. Which us another thing that hurts your cause: the more radical tend to want those who say the most silly things. Flat earth types.

Your insulting arrogance aside Joe, the fact of the matter is that people in this country are slowly rejecting your dream of slow walked progressive control...Cigarettes are still a legally purchased product, and regardless of what you think of them or people that use that product you can't deny that the whole push behind going after the Tobacco companies was all about extortion, just as this latest boondoggle is.

When you realize that liberalism is in real trouble the more that the voting electorate learns the truth about where it is progressives want to take the party, the more your party has to use things like 'open borders' to hopefully keep winning elections on the backs of the less intelligent, and mobility challenged...When you have to trick people into voting for you, I'd say the title "loser" fits.
 
Your insulting arrogance aside Joe, the fact of the matter is that people in this country are slowly rejecting your dream of slow walked progressive control...Cigarettes are still a legally purchased product, and regardless of what you think of them or people that use that product you can't deny that the whole push behind going after the Tobacco companies was all about extortion, just as this latest boondoggle is.

When you realize that liberalism is in real trouble the more that the voting electorate learns the truth about where it is progressives want to take the party, the more your party has to use things like 'open borders' to hopefully keep winning elections on the backs of the less intelligent, and mobility challenged...When you have to trick people into voting for you, I'd say the title "loser" fits.

J, no insulting intended. You seem to have grown more sensitive as you've aged.

However, being legal or illegal was never the point. Nor was it what you or I thought of them. it was that the industry successfully kept people in the dark by pretending there was a controversy where there wasn't one. Many good people, who outside fo that issue, were bright intelligent and overall good folks were fooled into thinking the jury was still out when it wasn't. this tactic worked so well that others copied it, as has been done concerning GW. There is no real debate.

And J I don't give two ****s about liberalism or conservativism. It's about what is right and what is wrong, true and false. Have you forgotten how to discuss something outside those two false frameworks?
 
J, no insulting intended. You seem to have grown more sensitive as you've aged.

However, being legal or illegal was never the point. Nor was it what you or I thought of them. it was that the industry successfully kept people in the dark by pretending there was a controversy where there wasn't one. Many good people, who outside fo that issue, were bright intelligent and overall good folks were fooled into thinking the jury was still out when it wasn't. this tactic worked so well that others copied it, as has been done concerning GW. There is no real debate.

And J I don't give two ****s about liberalism or conservativism. It's about what is right and what is wrong, true and false. Have you forgotten how to discuss something outside those two false frameworks?

Not at all Joe, however I don't for one second believe that the climate change going on today is the sole result of man's contribution of Co2 for the past 150 years or so. I mean think about it. From the convenient excuse of man's industrial advancement, to cows farting in the Iowa pastures, in the grand scheme of a planet that has been around for some 4.5 BILLION years +/-, especially when the contribution of Co2 is a relatively small part of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, that the solution is taxation, and a destruction of our current life blood (energy) for unproven, and insufficient alternatives that have NO chance in the immediate of doing anything other than destroying this country, and possibly the worlds economies over hype and scare.

As for you not caring about the political side of this, or anything for that matter Joe, I don't buy that for a moment, I too remember a time when both of us would have been a whole lot more willing to see each others arguments than we are today. What is right is deliberative providence, not some politicized junk science that has more holes than swiss cheese. What is true is that in our tiny sliver of time the earth has gone through changes, the political play in this is that rather than objectively use sound science to simultaneously come up with better, cleaner, more efficient ways of doing things, the hacks have turned it into a cult of political patronage, and power struggle for who can control more of the planets people through taxation, and resource distribution.

When you can admit that then we can discuss real alternatives, until then, screaming, name calling, and the usual tactics of progressivism are useless...The population doesn't buy it. I am in the majority as to the subject, and you are but a minority being used in a cynical game of power here. I hope for all of our sake Joe, that good people like yourself wake up and stop buying into the BS.
 
Not at all Joe, however I don't for one second believe that the climate change going on today is the sole result of man's contribution of Co2 for the past 150 years or so. I mean think about it. From the convenient excuse of man's industrial advancement, to cows farting in the Iowa pastures, in the grand scheme of a planet that has been around for some 4.5 BILLION years +/-, especially when the contribution of Co2 is a relatively small part of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, that the solution is taxation, and a destruction of our current life blood (energy) for unproven, and insufficient alternatives that have NO chance in the immediate of doing anything other than destroying this country, and possibly the worlds economies over hype and scare.

As for you not caring about the political side of this, or anything for that matter Joe, I don't buy that for a moment, I too remember a time when both of us would have been a whole lot more willing to see each others arguments than we are today. What is right is deliberative providence, not some politicized junk science that has more holes than swiss cheese. What is true is that in our tiny sliver of time the earth has gone through changes, the political play in this is that rather than objectively use sound science to simultaneously come up with better, cleaner, more efficient ways of doing things, the hacks have turned it into a cult of political patronage, and power struggle for who can control more of the planets people through taxation, and resource distribution.

When you can admit that then we can discuss real alternatives, until then, screaming, name calling, and the usual tactics of progressivism are useless...The population doesn't buy it. I am in the majority as to the subject, and you are but a minority being used in a cynical game of power here. I hope for all of our sake Joe, that good people like yourself wake up and stop buying into the BS.

First, no one says sole reason. They say a contributing factor, a significant factor, a controllable factor, but not sole factor.

Whether you buy it or not doesn't matter to me. Only Bush invading Iraq made me join a party. I'm no longer a party member. It's just too often anything not radical exaggering right here gets labeled partisan. The facts are aganist you in GW. If your mind was open, I think you'd see that. But to change my mind I need actual information and not exaggerations and distortions. Everything you guys throw up gets answered.
 
First, no one says sole reason. They say a contributing factor, a significant factor, a controllable factor, but not sole factor.

Whether you buy it or not doesn't matter to me. Only Bush invading Iraq made me join a party. I'm no longer a party member. It's just too often anything not radical exaggering right here gets labeled partisan. The facts are aganist you in GW. If your mind was open, I think you'd see that. But to change my mind I need actual information and not exaggerations and distortions. Everything you guys throw up gets answered.
Must be nice to never address an argument Joe. How simple to just say everything you don't agree with is distortion and exaggeration...:roll:
 
Must be nice to never address an argument Joe. How simple to just say everything you don't agree with is distortion and exaggeration...:roll:

You may not understand this j, but that is responding to an argument when the argument you're responding to IS a distortion and an exaggeration. When you and others stop distorting and exaggerating, we can move on to something more fruitful. It is not proper to pretend that there is merit to something there is no merit in.
 
You may not understand this j, but that is responding to an argument when the argument you're responding to IS a distortion and an exaggeration. When you and others stop distorting and exaggerating, we can move on to something more fruitful. It is not proper to pretend that there is merit to something there is no merit in.

Oh, so now you get to tell me what I should place, or not place "merit" in concerning my views eh? This is why progressive liberals like yourself need force to make your visions come to pass...The arrogance alone is stunning.
 
Oh, so now you get to tell me what I should place, or not place "merit" in concerning my views eh? This is why progressive liberals like yourself need force to make your visions come to pass...The arrogance alone is stunning.

Read closer. You can't expect others to put merit in it.
 
Who gives a **** what you put merit in? Who are you? :cool:

The guy you're talking to. As well as others who talk to you. There is no merit is exaggerations and hyperbole. So, you shouldn't expect anyone, anyone at all, to treat them with merit. Just good advice you won't likely take. ;)
 
The guy you're talking to. As well as others who talk to you. There is no merit is exaggerations and hyperbole. So, you shouldn't expect anyone, anyone at all, to treat them with merit. Just good advice you won't likely take. ;)
You're right. But I can rectify the mistake of talking to you, unfortunately you seem to be unable to do anything about your own dishonesty. . Have a good night.
 
You're right. But I can rectify the mistake of talking to you, unfortunately you seem to be unable to do anything about your own dishonesty. . Have a good night.

:lamo:lamo

Telling you the truth isn't dishonesty.
 
Sorry, right wingers, there was no stand down order in Benghazi.




this just in

Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack, US security team members claim | Fox News
It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta-- we need to get over there, we're losing the initiative,’” said Tiegen. “And Bob just looks straight at me and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.’”

“We're starting to get calls from the State Department guys saying, ‘Hey, we're taking fire, we need you guys here, we need help,’” said Paronto.

After a delay of nearly 30 minutes, the security team headed to the besieged consulate without orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for armed air support, which never came.
 
And because of that,

" 400 US surface-to-air missiles were 'STOLEN' from Libya during the Benghazi attack and are 'now in the hands of Al Qaeda', claims whistleblower"

"Four hundred American surface-to-air missiles were 'taken from Libya' during the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a former U.S. Attorney who represents whistleblowers claimed on Monday.

He added that the U.S. intelligence community is terrified they might be used to shoot down airliners."
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...azi-attack-says-whistle-blowers-attorney.html
 
Back
Top Bottom