• 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!

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

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

Exactly. The best that you can take away from the Hilary quote is that she wants to figure out what went wrong so long and we don't blame her for it. She has zero tolerance for introspection which makes her absolute poison as a leader.
Hillary has already taken blame for the incident long ago. The carelessness with which people throw about words, and the utter lack of concern about facts, always amazes me.

Clinton Accepts Blame for Benghazi - WSJ.com
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Perhaps you should start a thread about Joseph Kony and those who care can contribute.

In other words, no rebuttal. Kony isn't a cudgel the hacks can attempt to bash Hillary with. That is the only, and I mean ONLY reason they care one rabbit turd about Boko.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Exactly. The best that you can take away from the Hilary quote is that she wants to figure out what went wrong so long and we don't blame her for it. She has zero tolerance for introspection which makes her absolute poison as a leader.

Btw JM. :2wave: Just what were those repercussions Hillary suffered from her lil tantrum?
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Btw JM. :2wave: Just what were those repercussions Hillary suffered from her lil tantrum?

Well, I don't know if there have been any. Would she be Secretary of State today if Benghazi never happened? Maybe.

She has a lot to answer for if she plans to run for president in 2016. Failures in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Iran and now Nigeria. There is nothing positive that I can think of off the top of my head that Clinton accomplished as Secretary of State... or ever, for that matter.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Wow really hurts when someone picks on your beloved hilda doesn't it? I can't see how you view my opinion over your extreme lean as a lie? That makes no sense - so there is no apology - like I thought I never called you a liar I called out your lean as extreme left which you so clearly illustrate with each passing defense of the hildabeast. All of that of course my opinion which I'm entitled too and not about to apologize for.

Her words, "what difference, at this piont, does it make" is does not need context since they are her words. Did Romney's 47% need context - no - and neither does hilda's. I have my opinion as to what her words met and being a person that doesn't like hilda its clear its different then yours who's in love with her, will bow to her, and kiss her feet and defend her no matter what she says or how she says it.

BTW your "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA " puts you into context quite clearly as one who can't take criticism very well, can't accept other points of views, and get a little bent out of shape - toughen up, get some thick skin and live on. Don't show such - what did you call it - something lacking? I don't recall because it wasn't important, relevant or valued in the discussion.

FACT is hilda demonstrated exactly what her focus would be in a crisis - that is a weakness - everyone knows it clearly except her beloved fans. Each and every decision she makes will be solely focused on how it makes her look.


I await your apology.

Yes, but calling me a liar is still a personal attack.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lamo:lamo

Oh my God...how in the hell do you not understand that's EXACTLY the point I'm making! Holy crap, you just made my point for me. You aren't interested in context, you don't care what she actually said, you just want to twist her words into a way your political team can use for a victory.

Unbelievable, I never thought someone would actually admit they don't care about the context of words when they are blatantly twisting them into something they are not. That cracked me up. Thank you for proving exactly what I've been saying this whole thread.
:lamo

Seriously, you have to stop now, my side is hurting from laughing so much. The fact you are now saying that only extreme people care about putting words into the proper context shows you for exactly what you are. Only someone playing team politics or an incredibly dishonest person would take words out of context intentionally just to smear someone else because they don't agree with the letter behind their name. People who care about the truth will ALWAYS want to know the context of what is said.

Obviously you don't care about the truth, you just want to wear the Republican cheerleading costume. At least you're willing to admit it.
He got the truth. He just didn't get the "truth" he wanted.

Then, much like Johnson, you only saw and heard what you wanted to hear. I watched it in real time as well, she gave direct answers to the best of her ability. You're just playing partisan games at this point.

No, there is not. Just because you don't like the truth, you're not entitled to make up your own and call it fact.

They answered the questions directly.

If that were true, how come he didn't continue to press her? She didn't say anything in her last paragraph she hadn't already said, why didn't he continue to press her?

Your answer is BS and we both know it.

Every lie being told about what she said is offensive to anyone interested in the truth.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Well, I don't know if there have been any. Would she be Secretary of State today if Benghazi never happened? Maybe.

She has a lot to answer for if she plans to run for president in 2016. Failures in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Iran and now Nigeria. There is nothing positive that I can think of off the top of my head that Clinton accomplished as Secretary of State... or ever, for that matter.

Waitaminute JM.....are you telling me. That with her own words. That she was taking Responsibility for all the Major Security breaches.....that there have been No Repercussions for someone who screwed up massively on the job. :mrgreen:

Not even when she never checked back on her own people to see if they got out alive? :shock:

Who could ever trust her that wears a Uniform or works for the Fed? She wouldn't care if they live or die or even get out of the jam. Whats up with that. Who would want that for a President?
nono.gif
.....:doh
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Wow really hurts when someone picks on your beloved hilda doesn't it?
I don't know why you call her hilda, her name is Hillary. Surely you're smart enough to type an extra two letters.

And she's not my beloved, I have no attachment at all to her. Unlike you, I just prefer facts and truth.

I can't see how you view my opinion over your extreme lean as a lie?
That's not what I said. I said you called me a liar, by saying that I claim to be one thing when I'm another. Thus, you are calling me a liar.

So I still await your apology for the personal attack.

Her words, "what difference, at this piont, does it make" is does not need context since they are her words.
What an incredibly dishonest thing to say. Everything requires context. Taking words out of context (and your refusal to consider context says a lot about you) can completely twist the meaning of words into something they were never intended.

Did Romney's 47% need context
Of course they did. The problem with Romney's 47% comment was that, in context, it was incredibly offensive.

A better example would be when Romney was quoted as saying that he's "not concerned about the very poor". Any person interested in the truth would know he was simply making the case safety nets already exist for those people, so he would focus on the middle class, a completely logical thing to say.

I guess that means Romney is my beloved now too, right? Because I care about context when he said something?

I have my opinion as to what her words met
And your opinion is clearly wrong, as evidenced by the context surrounding her words. Why do you insist on such a dishonest interpretation of what she said? Are you really that absorbed into team politics you're willing to ignore facts to commit to lies?

BTW your "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA " puts you into context quite clearly as one who can't take criticism very well
No, it just was representative of how hard I laughed when you admitted you weren't concerned about facts, only mindless partisan rhetoric.

can't accept other points of views
You don't have a point of view, you have partisan rhetoric which has been proven false to anyone interested in truth.
toughen up, get some thick skin and live on.
Don't intentionally misrepresent what people say and we don't have a problem. *shrugs*

FACT is hilda demonstrated exactly what her focus would be in a crisis - that is a weakness - everyone knows it clearly except her beloved fans. Each and every decision she makes will be solely focused on how it makes her look.
And even if it's not what she does, you'll just pretend it is anyways, because you have already admitted you will willfully remain ignorant of any actual context or truth.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

In other words, no rebuttal. Kony isn't a cudgel the hacks can attempt to bash Hillary with. That is the only, and I mean ONLY reason they care one rabbit turd about Boko.

If you want to change the thread to Joseph Kony rather than Boko Haram and the kidnapped girls go ahead. What was it you wanted to say about him?
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Waitaminute JM.....are you telling me. That with her own words. That she was taking Responsibility for all the Major Security breaches.....that there have been No Repercussions for someone who screwed up massively on the job. :mrgreen:

Not even when she never checked back on her own people to see if they got out alive? :shock:

Who could ever trust her that wears a Uniform or works for the Fed? She wouldn't care if they live or die or even get out of the jam. Whats up with that. Who would want that for a President?
nono.gif
.....:doh

Unfortunately, she slept in when the call came, as did her boss. Doesn't this ad seem ludicrous now? Hillary Clinton Ad - 3 AM White House Ringing Phone - YouTube
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Well, I don't know if there have been any. Would she be Secretary of State today if Benghazi never happened? Maybe.

She has a lot to answer for if she plans to run for president in 2016. Failures in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Iran and now Nigeria. There is nothing positive that I can think of off the top of my head that Clinton accomplished as Secretary of State... or ever, for that matter.

There is nothing. The only thing they giver her credit for is traveling a great deal, which Bill probably encouraged anyway. There is no there there.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Perhaps you should start a thread about Joseph Kony and those who care can contribute.

Thanks for illustrating the point.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I await your apology.

Yes, but calling me a liar is still a personal attack.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lamo:lamo

Oh my God...how in the hell do you not understand that's EXACTLY the point I'm making! Holy crap, you just made my point for me. You aren't interested in context, you don't care what she actually said, you just want to twist her words into a way your political team can use for a victory.

Unbelievable, I never thought someone would actually admit they don't care about the context of words when they are blatantly twisting them into something they are not. That cracked me up. Thank you for proving exactly what I've been saying this whole thread.
:lamo

Seriously, you have to stop now, my side is hurting from laughing so much. The fact you are now saying that only extreme people care about putting words into the proper context shows you for exactly what you are. Only someone playing team politics or an incredibly dishonest person would take words out of context intentionally just to smear someone else because they don't agree with the letter behind their name. People who care about the truth will ALWAYS want to know the context of what is said.

Obviously you don't care about the truth, you just want to wear the Republican cheerleading costume. At least you're willing to admit it.
He got the truth. He just didn't get the "truth" he wanted.

Then, much like Johnson, you only saw and heard what you wanted to hear. I watched it in real time as well, she gave direct answers to the best of her ability. You're just playing partisan games at this point.

No, there is not. Just because you don't like the truth, you're not entitled to make up your own and call it fact.

They answered the questions directly.

If that were true, how come he didn't continue to press her? She didn't say anything in her last paragraph she hadn't already said, why didn't he continue to press her?

Your answer is BS and we both know it.

Every lie being told about what she said is offensive to anyone interested in the truth.

Hillary has proven she is not fit to lead anything...certainly not a country. :shrug:
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

You really need to get some things straight.

First I have an opinion, it's a free nation despite what you radical leftist want, and I will give my opinion at will.

Next if I want to refer to your misrepresentation of a lean here I may do so, and it's not calling you a liar it's my opinion on how you present yourself. IMO you present your self as a hilda lover at any and all cost.

Finally you saying what Hilda's words mean is meaningless for they are your partisan opinion NOT fact as you claim them to be. As long as you present your partisan leftist opinion as fact I'll continue to believe your lean as presented here is misleading and wrong (my opinion deal with it)

I don't know why you call her hilda, her name is Hillary. Surely you're smart enough to type an extra two letters.

And she's not my beloved, I have no attachment at all to her. Unlike you, I just prefer facts and truth.

That's not what I said. I said you called me a liar, by saying that I claim to be one thing when I'm another. Thus, you are calling me a liar.

So I still await your apology for the personal attack.

What an incredibly dishonest thing to say. Everything requires context. Taking words out of context (and your refusal to consider context says a lot about you) can completely twist the meaning of words into something they were never intended.

Of course they did. The problem with Romney's 47% comment was that, in context, it was incredibly offensive.

A better example would be when Romney was quoted as saying that he's "not concerned about the very poor". Any person interested in the truth would know he was simply making the case safety nets already exist for those people, so he would focus on the middle class, a completely logical thing to say.

I guess that means Romney is my beloved now too, right? Because I care about context when he said something?

And your opinion is clearly wrong, as evidenced by the context surrounding her words. Why do you insist on such a dishonest interpretation of what she said? Are you really that absorbed into team politics you're willing to ignore facts to commit to lies?

No, it just was representative of how hard I laughed when you admitted you weren't concerned about facts, only mindless partisan rhetoric.

You don't have a point of view, you have partisan rhetoric which has been proven false to anyone interested in truth.
Don't intentionally misrepresent what people say and we don't have a problem. *shrugs*

And even if it's not what she does, you'll just pretend it is anyways, because you have already admitted you will willfully remain ignorant of any actual context or truth.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

In other words, no rebuttal. Kony isn't a cudgel the hacks can attempt to bash Hillary with. That is the only, and I mean ONLY reason they care one rabbit turd about Boko.

Its always remarkable watching you claim you know the telos of anyone who disagrees with you. 300 girls kidnapped, many forced to concert to islam, a terror group that kills children for daring to go to school-and you KNOW, DEEP DOWN, that anyone unhappy with the actions of the former sec of state regarding this group, and this incident are simply because of politics. I guess thats one way to go.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Its always remarkable watching you claim you know the telos of anyone who disagrees with you. 300 girls kidnapped, many forced to concert to islam, a terror group that kills children for daring to go to school-and you KNOW, DEEP DOWN, that anyone unhappy with the actions of the former sec of state regarding this group, and this incident are simply because of politics. I guess thats one way to go.

I don't doubt that some of the concern is genuine. Just not from the usual suspects.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I don't doubt that some of the concern is genuine. Just not from the usual suspects.

Right, because of your supernatural abilities. Perhaps its just convenient, you know to keep things tidy in your mind.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Hillary has proven she is not fit to lead anything...certainly not a country. :shrug:
You've proven you have no objectivity on this issue.
You really need to get some things straight.

First I have an opinion, it's a free nation despite what you radical leftist want, and I will give my opinion at will.
But you weren't giving an opinion, you were lying about what Hillary said while simultaneously calling me a liar.

This isn't hard.

Next if I want to refer to your misrepresentation of a lean here I may do so
But it's not a misrepresentation of a lean. Only an extremist would think I'm anything other than moderate. Do you have any idea how many times conservatives on this forum have called me liberal or how many times liberals on here have called me a conservative?

I'm neither, I'm someone interested in facts and common sense. Extreme solutions are never real solutions, they just cause different problems. Most problems require small fixes, but since small moderate fixes don't play well to voter bases, you rarely hear candidates advocate for small fixes.

I'm a moderate. I really don't care what you think I am, I'm a moderate. And you called me a liar, which is a personal attack. You said if I could prove where you called me a liar, you would apologize. You haven't apologized. So are you going to apologize or are you going to be the liar you claim me to be?

and it's not calling you a liar it's my opinion on how you present yourself.
Yes, it is. You say I am misrepresenting my political lean...which means you are calling me a liar.

This isn't hard to understand. Why you're refusing to do so boggles my mind.

IMO you present your self as a hilda lover at any and all cost.
I'm a Hillary lover because, unlike you, I care about context and the meaning of what she says, and don't proudly gloat about the fact I'm deliberately taking her words out of context to promote my political agenda?

That's just stupid.

Finally you saying what Hilda's words mean is meaningless for they are your partisan opinion NOT fact as you claim them to be.
No, they ARE fact. We know it's fact because we can see EXACTLY what she meant. When you read the entire exchange, it's VERY clear what she meant. You are 100% wrong on this.

As long as you present your partisan
MY partisan? No, you have admitted you are intentionally ignoring all context of what Hillary said because you know the context will disprove YOUR partisan opinion. You're the only one playing team politics here, and you've already admitted to it.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I'm a Hillary lover because, unlike you, I care about context and the meaning of what she says, and don't proudly gloat about the fact I'm deliberately taking her words out of context to promote my political agenda?

That's just stupid.

No, they ARE fact. We know it's fact because we can see EXACTLY what she meant. When you read the entire exchange, it's VERY clear what she meant. You are 100% wrong on this.

MY partisan? No, you have admitted you are intentionally ignoring all context of what Hillary said because you know the context will disprove YOUR partisan opinion. You're the only one playing team politics here, and you've already admitted to it.

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.

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. What about the people that actually murdered their sons ??? Why not promise to bring them to justice ??



And you defend her by crying "context" ?? You're right... that's just stupid. Your partisanship is on stage for everyone to see.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I never said I had objectivity. Hildabeast is someone that should be banned from public service over her lies and maybe worse - maybe she deserves prison. These are my opinions and I'm free to enjoy them as much as I like.

You seeem quite fixated on being called a liar becuase my opinion of you is FAR different then your opinion of yourself. I'm quite certain neither opinion is completely accurate, but you have done nothing but show far left leanings, complete hildabeast support, and extreme views of the same so I'm quite comfortable with my OPINION of your radical left wing leanings. I don't know why that hurts you so much? I don't care either.

I will repeat this though for it bears worth repeating. Your view of context of hilda's "what difference does it make" statement is your opinion. I find your opinion distasteful, irrelevent and possibly even damaging upon the nation. If our society is to accept your view (which in my opinion is nothing but more political spin to protect the hildabeast) then it will ignore the tragedy of Benghazi and promote those who failed our people there. So I will state my opinion about your inept point of view, about your radical hilda defense, and extremism at each and every point I can.




You've proven you have no objectivity on this issue.
But you weren't giving an opinion, you were lying about what Hillary said while simultaneously calling me a liar.

This isn't hard.

But it's not a misrepresentation of a lean. Only an extremist would think I'm anything other than moderate. Do you have any idea how many times conservatives on this forum have called me liberal or how many times liberals on here have called me a conservative?

I'm neither, I'm someone interested in facts and common sense. Extreme solutions are never real solutions, they just cause different problems. Most problems require small fixes, but since small moderate fixes don't play well to voter bases, you rarely hear candidates advocate for small fixes.

I'm a moderate. I really don't care what you think I am, I'm a moderate. And you called me a liar, which is a personal attack. You said if I could prove where you called me a liar, you would apologize. You haven't apologized. So are you going to apologize or are you going to be the liar you claim me to be?

Yes, it is. You say I am misrepresenting my political lean...which means you are calling me a liar.

This isn't hard to understand. Why you're refusing to do so boggles my mind.

I'm a Hillary lover because, unlike you, I care about context and the meaning of what she says, and don't proudly gloat about the fact I'm deliberately taking her words out of context to promote my political agenda?

That's just stupid.

No, they ARE fact. We know it's fact because we can see EXACTLY what she meant. When you read the entire exchange, it's VERY clear what she meant. You are 100% wrong on this.

MY partisan? No, you have admitted you are intentionally ignoring all context of what Hillary said because you know the context will disprove YOUR partisan opinion. You're the only one playing team politics here, and you've already admitted to it.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

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

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.
 
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.

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom