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

Slyfox696 · May 28, 2014

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

mac said:
You really have no idea what you're talking about. :shrug:

I do, I'm just not blinded by team politics. I prefer context to my quotes and reason over political rhetoric. Perhaps that's why people have a hard time understanding.

Grant · May 28, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I do, I'm just not blinded by team politics. I prefer context to my quotes and reason over political rhetoric. Perhaps that's why people have a hard time understanding.

Yeah, that must be it.

mac · May 28, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I do, I'm just not blinded by team politics. I prefer context to my quotes and reason over political rhetoric. Perhaps that's why people have a hard time understanding.

No, you really don't.

mac · May 28, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I do, I'm just not blinded by team politics. I prefer context to my quotes and reason over political rhetoric. Perhaps that's why people have a hard time understanding.

The context is, here, that Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State resulted in a greatly destabilised geopolitical environment. And, she royally f-ed up Benghazi. So, go ahead and vote for her. It's not like competence is what Democrats look for. Just pretty words and sunshine up the skirt.

Slyfox696 · Jun 6, 2014

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

mac said:
The context is, here, that Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State resulted in a greatly destabilised geopolitical environment.

No, the context here, from the beginning, was her quote was taken out of context. Furthermore, the context was she had already answered the question multiple times. Finally, the context was partisans aren't interested in truths, only the spin.

So, go ahead and vote for her.

Who said I'm voting for her? I've never said I'm voting for her, nor did I say I wouldn't vote for her. All I'm saying is I'm not blinded by team politics and fall for stupid talking points which fail reality.

It's not like competence is what Democrats look for. Just pretty words and sunshine up the skirt.

Who cares about Democrats? I guess you pretty much exposed yourself as the partisan poster I figured you for.

mac · Jun 8, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
No, the context here, from the beginning, was her quote was taken out of context. Furthermore, the context was she had already answered the question multiple times. Finally, the context was partisans aren't interested in truths, only the spin.

No, the context being used, over and over, is that she doesn't care. Like she clearly expressed in the hearing she originally delivered it in.

Who said I'm voting for her? I've never said I'm voting for her, nor did I say I wouldn't vote for her. All I'm saying is I'm not blinded by team politics and fall for stupid talking points which fail reality.
Who cares about Democrats? I guess you pretty much exposed yourself as the partisan poster I figured you for.

If you are blind enough to defend her, in context or out, you're blind enough that you voting for her is easily assumable.

Slyfox696 · Jun 11, 2014

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

mac said:
No, the context being used, over and over, is that she doesn't care.

Which is nothing more than baseless political rhetoric, which can only be achieved absent any real context.

Once again, thank you for proving what I figured all along.

Like she clearly expressed in the hearing she originally delivered it in.

Except she didn't, as the context clearly shows.

If you are blind enough to defend her, in context or out, you're blind enough that you voting for her is easily assumable.

That's beyond ridiculous. Defending truth has absolutely nothing to do with voting preferences, at least not in the world of anyone who doesn't play team politics.

mac · Jun 11, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
Which is nothing more than baseless political rhetoric, which can only be achieved absent any real context.

Once again, thank you for proving what I figured all along.
Except she didn't, as the context clearly shows.

That's beyond ridiculous. Defending truth has absolutely nothing to do with voting preferences, at least not in the world of anyone who doesn't play team politics.

You're quite blinded, sir.

Slyfox696 · Jun 11, 2014

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

mac said:
You're quite blinded, sir.

I'm only discussing truths. I'm sorry if they don't fit preconceived political positions.

mac · Jun 11, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I'm only discussing truths. I'm sorry if they don't fit preconceived political positions.

No, you're discussing your own preconceived political position.

Grant · Jun 12, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I'm only discussing truths. I'm sorry if they don't fit preconceived political positions.

You're just another who doesn't understand the difference between truth and opinion.

Slyfox696 · Jun 12, 2014

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

mac said:
No, you're discussing your own preconceived political position.

Which is to read the entire context of what someone says? Yeah, I'm trying to get you to do the same. The problem is you refuse to read it without partisan blinders on.

Grant said:
You're just another who doesn't understand the difference between truth and opinion.

No, unlike many, I understand there IS a difference between truth and opinion. Facts can't be twisted, no matter how badly some people want them to be.

And the fact is people are taking Clinton's quote out of context because they want to. It's just a fact.

Grant · Jun 12, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
Which is to read the entire context of what someone says? Yeah, I'm trying to get you to do the same. The problem is you refuse to read it without partisan blinders on.
No, unlike many, I understand there IS a difference between truth and opinion. Facts can't be twisted, no matter how badly some people want them to be.

And the fact is people are taking Clinton's quote out of context because they want to. It's just a fact.

It is still a quote, and that is a fact.

mac · Jun 13, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
Which is to read the entire context of what someone says? Yeah, I'm trying to get you to do the same. The problem is you refuse to read it without partisan blinders on.
No, unlike many, I understand there IS a difference between truth and opinion. Facts can't be twisted, no matter how badly some people want them to be.

And the fact is people are taking Clinton's quote out of context because they want to. It's just a fact.

No, to defend the indefensible out of partisan bias. :shrug:

Slyfox696 · Jun 15, 2014

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

Grant said:
It is still a quote, and that is a fact.

An out of context quote is worthless to anyone interested in truth.

mac said:
No, to defend the indefensible out of partisan bias. :shrug:

Yes, how awful I care about the context of what she said. It's so much easier to take it out of context and then act outraged over it.

Your comments make me laugh so hard.

mac · Jun 15, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
An out of context quote is worthless to anyone interested in truth.
Yes, how awful I care about the context of what she said. It's so much easier to take it out of context and then act outraged over it.

Your comments make me laugh so hard.

There is no need to take it out of context to be outraged by it. Beyond her lack of compassion regarding the situation, her sheer ineptitude as a leader has been proven. Laugh at that.

Slyfox696 · Jun 15, 2014

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

mac said:
There is no need to take it out of context to be outraged by it.

The only way to be outraged about her quote is to take it out of context. Unless you're outraged at her point that we should be doing everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

Is that why you're outraged? Because Hillary thought they should spend time fixing the problems, not using the death of four Americans as a political football? So you're outraged at American lives possibly being saved?

Really? You're outraged by that? That doesn't surprise me, you don't strike me as someone who cares nearly as much about safety of people as you do criticizing a Democrat.

Beyond her lack of compassion regarding the situation

Which exists only in the mind of partisans.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 15, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
The only way to be outraged about her quote is to take it out of context. Unless you're outraged at her point that we should be doing everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

Is that why you're outraged? Because Hillary thought they should spend time fixing the problems, not using the death of four Americans as a political football? So you're outraged at American lives possibly being saved?

Really? You're outraged by that? That doesn't surprise me, you don't strike me as someone who cares nearly as much about safety of people as you do criticizing a Democrat.
Which exists only in the mind of partisans.

Nonsense. The "problems" were the direct result of decisions made by known individuals, yet the proposed "solutions" are to give these same inept morons more resources and leave them in charge of coming up with a new plan. What difference, with the same folks calling the shots, will that make?

mac · Jun 15, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
The only way to be outraged about her quote is to take it out of context. Unless you're outraged at her point that we should be doing everything we can to prevent it from happening again.

Is that why you're outraged? Because Hillary thought they should spend time fixing the problems, not using the death of four Americans as a political football? So you're outraged at American lives possibly being saved?

How can one ensure that it doesn't happen again when one (reportedly) doesn't know what happened to begin with? Or cares to find out.

Really? You're outraged by that? That doesn't surprise me, you don't strike me as someone who cares nearly as much about safety of people as you do criticizing a Democrat.
Which exists only in the mind of partisans.

I'm outraged by the supreme incompetence that led to the situation, the incompetence and facile handling of the situation, and the cowardice and dishonesty in the aftermath.

Slyfox696 · Jun 15, 2014

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

ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. The "problems" were the direct result of decisions made by known individuals, yet the proposed "solutions" are to give these same inept morons more resources and leave them in charge of coming up with a new plan. What difference, with the same folks calling the shots, will that make?

I'm not sure you understand what we were talking about. We were talking about how some people are taking Clinton's words out of context and using that to criticize her.

mac said:
How can one ensure that it doesn't happen again when one (reportedly) doesn't know what happened to begin with?

They did at the time of the hearing. Why is this so hard for you?

Or cares to find out.

Click to expand...

.....you do realize that's EXACTLY what Clinton was saying in her quote you refuse to put in context, right? That the panel should be far more interested in fixing the problem than worrying about what intelligence initially said was the cause?

God, I can't stand partisan blinders.

mac · Jun 16, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I'm not sure you understand what we were talking about. We were talking about how some people are taking Clinton's words out of context and using that to criticize her.
They did at the time of the hearing. Why is this so hard for you?
.....you do realize that's EXACTLY what Clinton was saying in her quote you refuse to put in context, right? That the panel should be far more interested in fixing the problem than worrying about what intelligence initially said was the cause?

God, I can't stand partisan blinders.

What you seem to not understand is that the context of the question put to Clinton was intended to get to the root of why the intelligence of the situation was either not available to the secretary at the time, or if it was (which it reportedly was), why it was so poorly understood, at the time. Mrs. Clinton did not want to answer that question, and so the outburst. Partisan blinders are one thing, ignorance is quite another.

Slyfox696 · Jun 18, 2014

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

mac said:
What you seem to not understand is that the context of the question put to Clinton was intended to get to the root of why the intelligence of the situation was either not available to the secretary at the time, or if it was (which it reportedly was), why it was so poorly understood, at the time. Mrs. Clinton did not want to answer that question, and so the outburst. Partisan blinders are one thing, ignorance is quite another.

Clinton had already answered the question multiple times. I've told you that multiple times.

Clinton said:
I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

Clinton said:
There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

Clinton said:
Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --

Clinton said:
Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—
...
Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Why do you insist on stating falsehoods which are easily proven false? Clinton had already answered the questions Johnson asked multiple times. And her "what difference" comment was entirely about re-focusing on what SHOULD be the issue, which was how to better protect Americans in the future, instead of the petty political games Johnson was playing to score election votes.

Your comments are so ridiculously partisan, it's amazing you don't post them in red font.

mac · Jun 18, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
Clinton had already answered the question multiple times. I've told you that multiple times.

Why do you insist on stating falsehoods which are easily proven false? Clinton had already answered the questions Johnson asked multiple times. And her "what difference" comment was entirely about re-focusing on what SHOULD be the issue, which was how to better protect Americans in the future, instead of the petty political games Johnson was playing to score election votes.

Your comments are so ridiculously partisan, it's amazing you don't post them in red font.

You're clueless, sir.

Slyfox696 · Jun 18, 2014

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

mac said:
You're clueless, sir.

I guess when confronted with truth, it's easier to make baseless and obviously false statements than it is to admit you were wrong. Fair enough, I accept your concession.

mac · Jun 19, 2014

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

Slyfox696 said:
I guess when confronted with truth, it's easier to make baseless and obviously false statements than it is to admit you were wrong. Fair enough, I accept your concession.

I've explained it already, you don't understand.

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

Sometimes wrong