The Benghazi Lie in Black and White

[Merkava]

But they never said she lied. Which is my point and has been your previous assertion in numerous posts. I'm glad you finally came around to understand the truth.

- - - Updated - - -



And even when proven wrong, turns the conversation back to redefining what he said previously instead of bowing out gracefully.

What the fuck are you even trying to argue? We should make this a poll question, Cubby. How many people here would think that if a GOP House Report called Hillary Clinton a liar, that Cubby would just accept it as the truth and move on?

[ControlWarrior]

Don't look now, turns out the Stevens family are a bunch of $Hillariates! Check out what Ambassador Stevens' brother and sister have to say:

What did you think of Secretary Clinton’s conduct on Benghazi?

She has taken full responsibility, being head of the State Department, for what occurred. She took measures to respond to the review board’s recommendations. She established programs for a better security system. But it is never going to be perfect. Part of being a diplomat is being out in the community. We all recognize that there’s a risk in serving in a dangerous environment. Chris thought that was very important, and he probably would have done it again. I don’t see any usefulness in continuing to criticize her. It is very unjust.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...n-for-benghazi

To be fair, they are probably tired of their deceased sibling being used as a political football by both sides.

[Merkava]

Same old Merkava : making assertions without providing any proof.

Back for another spanking? Here's some advice; This time, you might want to admit that you're trolling before we start so you don't get embarrassed again. Take it however you want.

[callipygoustp]

Back for another spanking? Here's some advice; This time, you might want to admit that you're trolling before we start so you don't get embarrassed again. Take it however you want.

Funny coming from the guy whose arguments I shoved so far down his throat he resorted to putting me on ignore.

[Merkava]

Funny coming from the guy whose arguments I shoved so far down his throat he resorted to putting me on ignore.

I put you on ignore because you admitted that you were a troll. We never even started a debate because you kept backpedaling.

If you really want to have the debate just let me know.

[cubby]

What the fuck are you even trying to argue? We should make this a poll question, Cubby. How many people here would think that if a GOP House Report called Hillary Clinton a liar, that Cubby would just accept it as the truth and move on?

Lol, you're so cute when you're at the end of your rope.

Again, if the report had found that Hillary actually lied, they would have reported it. They didn't. You can't really discuss a fictional truth, although you so often try (as others have pointed out in this thread), so there is not point in answering a hypothetical.

However, if the GOP House Report (are you clear now on which report we're discussing - you seemed confused earlier) had stated that Hillary had lied, that would be the end of this topic for me. All I've claimed is that the Report demonstrates that Hillary Clinton did not lie. If she had (again, for the cheap seats) they would have sung it loud and clear. Because a witch hunt isn't fun unless you can hang someone. They couldn't, so they fell back on their tired old conspiracy theories and basically accomplished nothing.

Except to demonstrate that once again, Hillary didn't lie.

[purebalance]

So you're saying you're totally fine with the US committing war crimes and intentionally targeting innocent civilians? I mean, he wasn't quoted out of context, he said we should kill their families.

There is no "implying" that Trump is a racist or "implying" he's advocated for war crimes and torture, he's explicitly advocated for both and explicitly been racist. He's been called out by his own bloody party leadership for his racist comments, for fucks sake.

Anyone that says he's racist is a flat out liar and taking things out of context. Show me one example of him being racist please. I've shut these down about 30 times on these forums and people still put their fingers in their ears.

[jdbond592]

So "Killary" named was earned because she lied about how and not because...she downright murdered 4 Americans as is the popular theory amongst conservatives?

[Nachturnal]

Well Hillary is a witch but that has nothing to do with Benghazi

Well that, I won't argue lol.

[jdbond592]

Anyone that says he's racist is a flat out liar and taking things out of context. Show me one example of him being racist please. I've shut these down about 30 times on these forums and people still put their fingers in their ears.

I can't be judged by a "Mexican" even though I love Mexican people. I think that says a lot when "Mexican" here is an American born judge who has put his life on line to serve this country, unlike draft dodging Donald.

[ControlWarrior]

Lol, you're so cute when you're at the end of your rope.

Again, if the report had found that Hillary actually lied, they would have reported it. They didn't. You can't really discuss a fictional truth, although you so often try (as others have pointed out in this thread), so there is not point in answering a hypothetical.

However, if the GOP House Report (are you clear now on which report we're discussing - you seemed confused earlier) had stated that Hillary had lied, that would be the end of this topic for me. All I've claimed is that the Report demonstrates that Hillary Clinton did not lie. If she had (again, for the cheap seats) they would have sung it loud and clear. Because a witch hunt isn't fun unless you can hang someone. They couldn't, so they fell back on their tired old conspiracy theories and basically accomplished nothing.

Except to demonstrate that once again, Hillary didn't lie.

Yeah, but usually where there's smoke there's fire.

[callipygoustp]

I put you on ignore because you admitted that you were a troll. We never even started a debate because you kept backpedaling.

I never said I was a troll. Another one of your tactics: putting words in people's mouth to manufacture a point.

Further, I never back peddled.

What I did do was hammer every point down your throat. It was quite easy and not very fullfilling until I realized it forced you to slink away behind ignore. THAT was quality.

If you really want to have the debate just let me know.

You would actually have to present an argument for that to happen. As of yet, I have not seen you do so.

As I said (before I was aware of the type of mmoc resident you are) :
Keep on keepin' on brother!

[lockedout]

There is no "implying" that Trump is a racist or "implying" he's advocated for war crimes and torture, he's explicitly advocated for both and explicitly been racist. He's been called out by his own bloody party leadership for his racist comments, for fucks sake.

Please show me what Trump said that is racist.

[Merkava]

Lol, you're so cute when you're at the end of your rope.

Again, if the report had found that Hillary actually lied, they would have reported it. They didn't. You can't really discuss a fictional truth, although you so often try (as others have pointed out in this thread), so there is not point in answering a hypothetical.

However, if the GOP House Report (are you clear now on which report we're discussing - you seemed confused earlier) had stated that Hillary had lied, that would be the end of this topic for me. All I've claimed is that the Report demonstrates that Hillary Clinton did not lie. If she had (again, for the cheap seats) they would have sung it loud and clear. Because a witch hunt isn't fun unless you can hang someone. They couldn't, so they fell back on their tired old conspiracy theories and basically accomplished nothing.

Except to demonstrate that once again, Hillary didn't lie.

Answer the question; What would you say if a Republican led committee said that Hillary Clinton lied? Do you really expect me to believe that your mind would be changed?

Listen, I'll spend some time with this because I think that maybe you're somewhat intellectually honest, but you just don't spend enough time engaged in these types of pursuits.

Let's say that we're both jurors on the same murder trial. The prosecutor says that the defendant lied. As evidence of this, he points to a police interview transcript where the defendant says that he couldn't have committed the murder because he was at home at the time. Later in the interview, the transcript shows that the defendant says that he was at work when the murders occurred. Later, during jury deliberations, would you say that there's no evidence that the defendant lied? Would you challenge other jurors to point out to you exactly where in the transcript does it say that the defendant lied?

The truth is that contradictory statements are evidence of falsehoods being perpetuated. Now again, maybe you need it spelled out for you. But the truth is, you would hand wave it away as partisanship if it were.

If you want examples of her lies on this, I've pointed it out several times. Her testimony in January, 4 months after the attacks, that she knew of no reports that contradicted the IC talking points when Rice went on the Sunday shows is a lie. Hillary's own statement to the Egyptian Prime Minister contradicts the IC reports. If you'd like to dispute something, and if you think you're informed enough, dispute that.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said I was a troll. Another one of your tactics: putting words in people's mouth to manufacture a point.

Further, I never back peddled.

What I did do was hammer every point down your throat. It was quite easy and not very fullfilling until I realized it forced you to slink away behind ignore. THAT was quality.



You would actually have to present an argument for that to happen. As of yet, I have not seen you do so.

As I said (before I was aware of the type of mmoc resident you are) :
Keep on keepin' on brother!

You're pathetic. You have no intention of debating in good faith, or even debating at all. If you change your mind and wanna get off the sidelines and if you think you have anything that counters any of my positions, just let me know. I'll be here.

[cubby]

Yeah, but usually where there's smoke there's fire.

So, I very much agree with you in general on this concept. What gets me is that there has been a lot of smoke but no fire with regards to Hillary, however, the perception of her in the general public is one of, well, a liar. I make no claim to her innocence - she's as cut throat as it comes in politics. However, she has not really been proven to be a liar in the criminal sense. Granted, there are a great deal of political statements both in and out of her campaigning that lend themselves to exaggerations, however, those can be set aside as political exaggerations rather than criminal lies.

I realize I'm drawing a very, very shaky line here - but bear with me.

There are plenty of sites that lay claim to her political exaggerations - I can even link some myself. But all of those, such as the grandparents thing, the landing under sniper fire, etc., are more campaign exaggerations rather than outright lies. I know I'm walking deep in the gray area here, but does any of this make sense?

[ControlWarrior]

Answer the question; What would you say if a Republican led committee said that Hillary Clinton lied? Do you really expect me to believe that you're mind would be changed.

Listen, I'll spend some time with this because I think that maybe you're somewhat intellectually honest, but you just don't spend enough time engaged in these types of pursuits.

Let's say that we're both jurors on the same murder trial. The prosecutor says that the defendant lied. As evidence of this, he points to a police interview transcript where the defendant says that he couldn't have committed the murder because he was at home at the time. Later in the interview, the transcript shows that the defendant says that he was at work when the murders occurred. Later, during jury deliberations, would you say that there's no evidence that the defendant lied? Would you challenge other jurors to point out to you exactly where in the transcript does it say that the defendant lied?

The truth is that contradictory statements are evidence of falsehoods being perpetuated. Now again, maybe you need it spelled out for you. But the truth is, you would hand wave it away as partisanship if it were.

If you want examples of her lies on this, I've pointed it out several times. Her testimony in January 4 months after the attacks that she knew of no reports that contradicted the IC talking points when Rice went on the Sunday shows is a lie. Hillary's own statement to the Egyptian Prime Minister contradicts the IC reports. If you'd like to dispute something, and if you think you're informed enough, dispute that.

I think everyone can agree that she was willingly deceitful. However, we haven't saw clear evidence that she perjured herself. Until that changes, we just have to accept the status quo.

[lockedout]

So, I very much agree with you in general on this concept. What gets me is that there has been a lot of smoke but no fire with regards to Hillary, however, the perception of her in the general public is one of, well, a liar. I make no claim to her innocence - she's as cut throat as it comes in politics. However, she has not really been proven to be a liar in the criminal sense. Granted, there are a great deal of political statements both in and out of her campaigning that lend themselves to exaggerations, however, those can be set aside as political exaggerations rather than criminal lies.

I realize I'm drawing a very, very shaky line here - but bear with me.

There are plenty of sites that lay claim to her political exaggerations - I can even link some myself. But all of those, such as the grandparents thing, the landing under sniper fire, etc., are more campaign exaggerations rather than outright lies. I know I'm walking deep in the gray area here, but does any of this make sense?

Sorry but landing under sniper fire was an outright lie.

[Merkava]

I think everyone can agree that she was willingly deceitful. However, we haven't saw clear evidence that she perjured herself. Until that changes, we just have to accept the status quo.

She didn't perjure herself in the testimony that I was referring to because she wasn't sworn in.

[callipygoustp]

You're pathetic. You have no intention of debating in good faith, or even debating at all. If you change your mind and wanna get off the sidelines and if you think you have anything that counters any of my positions, just let me know. I'll be here.

Such a hypocrite. You start backing up your assertions, we can debate. Till then, impossible. Well its not impossible but it would be nothing more than "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is" "no it isn't". That's your argument style. Examples of which can be found in every thread you are involved in.

Reminds me very much of :

Of course, the main difference is that you're not funny.

Keep on keepin' on brother!

[purebalance]

I can't be judged by a "Mexican" even though I love Mexican people. I think that says a lot when "Mexican" here is an American born judge who has put his life on line to serve this country, unlike draft dodging Donald.

Yes that was 100% not racist and 100% factual.... lol stating facts is now racist? Let's put all white cops on the Freddie Gray juries and see how far that goes.

Mexico itself had already boycotted and badmouthed him and Mexican Americans had as well BEFORE this judge thing due to his stance on illegal immigrants. Him stating that the judge is probably biased is not only not racist, but also the foundation of many judge/juror selections.