Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
If you'd like proof concerning Benghazi, then read the proceedings or summaries of any official hearing on the matter. It's fairly well resolved and has been for a while now.
Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
But they need it to be a thing, it's not fetch.
Jetackuu said: »
It's not that we shouldn't care that they may have lied to the public, but more so that they do it all the time, so why care now?
Jetackuu said: »
Both of those events are fake scandals blown way out of proportion, and it's been explained as to why before, I'm not repeating myself when you're going to just dismiss it because it hurts your twisted world view.
Jetackuu said: »
Not to mention your explanation of the 2nd one is false, there was a targeting of groups that were popping up in mass numbers, nothing more, any political *** thought up was merely conjecture and you all ate it up like the good little puppies you are.
And yet....
(incoming excuse of people forgetting what happened)
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
If you'd like proof concerning Benghazi, then read the proceedings or summaries of any official hearing on the matter. It's fairly well resolved and has been for a while now.
I bet you anything that if a Republican lied under oath, you would be screaming bloody murder........
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
If you'd like proof concerning Benghazi, then read the proceedings or summaries of any official hearing on the matter. It's fairly well resolved and has been for a while now.
I thought you were above that.....
Damn, a page barely ended from that argument too....
(incoming "that's not what I said" excuse)
Oh look somebody else who doesn't know what words mean.
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
You're just being a moron.
As to the IRS thing again: yes, it was made up ***, because a bunch of idiots thought they could get away with scamming tax-free organizations by popping up all at once and then wonder why they get audited. There's nothing political about being audited, and if they were doing nothing wrong then they shouldn't have a problem with it.
Here's an idea: don't try to scam the system.
edit: that isn't what I said, maybe you should go learn how to read. But I knew you were going to go with that when I said "them" but thanks for being very predictable.
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
You're just being a moron.
As to the IRS thing again: yes, it was made up ***, because a bunch of idiots thought they could get away with scamming tax-free organizations by popping up all at once and then wonder why they get audited. There's nothing political about being audited, and if they were doing nothing wrong then they shouldn't have a problem with it.
Here's an idea: don't try to scam the system.
edit: that isn't what I said, maybe you should go learn how to read. But I knew you were going to go with that when I said "them" but thanks for being very predictable.
Benghazi has been fully explained in numerous hearings. Just because the neocons dismiss the thorough explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its hilarious to watch tho, it really is. I should look up when those new hearings are.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
There are no "us vs them" statements? You're not taking a side? What forum do you think you're on?
[+]
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Benghazi has been fully explained in numerous hearings. Just because the neocons dismiss the thorough explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its hilarious to watch tho, it really is. I should look up when those new hearings are.
It's been fully explained? I guess that explains why one of the American security officers just wrote a book about the incident because nobody was asking questions to a guy who was actually there.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Oh. Well that explains a lot actually. Carry on.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
If you'd like proof concerning Benghazi, then read the proceedings or summaries of any official hearing on the matter. It's fairly well resolved and has been for a while now.
A guide to GOP's Benghazi obsession
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
There are no "us vs them" statements? You're not taking a side? What forum do you think you're on?
When you don't have a rebuttal, you use various excuses and approaches, as demonstrated by Pleebo and Jet.
1) The Fallacy Excuse
2) The passive-aggressive approach
3) The "attempt to ridicule" approach
4) The Definition excuse
5) The Subject-Change method
All of which have been used on this very thread too....
(incoming passive-aggressive counter from either Pleebo and/or Jet)
[+]
This right here is why Behghazi isn't a scandal:
No more needs to be said.
Quote:
Republicans also have criticized the Obama administration for not responding to the attacks more aggressively when they happened, though a bipartisan Senate investigation found that military resources simply weren't in position to help. Similarly, Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican most aggressively pressing Benghazi accusations, says he has "suspicions" that Hillary Clinton gave "stand down" orders to stop military resources from deploying to Benghazi even though a Republican report to the Armed Services Committee says that no such "stand down" order was issued.
In addition, Republicans have criticized the Obama administration for not doing more to prevent the attacks, such as beefing up consular security. Yet it was the same House Republicans who initially denied the Obama administration's request for additional embassy security funding.
In addition, Republicans have criticized the Obama administration for not doing more to prevent the attacks, such as beefing up consular security. Yet it was the same House Republicans who initially denied the Obama administration's request for additional embassy security funding.
No more needs to be said.
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Benghazi has been fully explained in numerous hearings. Just because the neocons dismiss the thorough explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its hilarious to watch tho, it really is. I should look up when those new hearings are.
I can't wait to hear all the new developments and hard-hitting questions. Why hasn't a space-time distortion been created so we can go back to the moments before the attack and warn everyone? Why didn't Obama mobilize the Justice League to swoop in and save everybody before the situation got out of hand? How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? Only once we get some real answers can we begin to heal as a nation.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
There are no "us vs them" statements? You're not taking a side? What forum do you think you're on?
When you don't have a rebuttal, you use various excuses and approaches, as demonstrated by Pleebo and Jet.
1) The Fallacy Excuse
2) The passive-aggressive approach
3) The "attempt to ridicule" approach
4) The Definition excuse
5) The Subject-Change method
All of which have been used on this very thread too....
(incoming passive-aggressive counter from either Pleebo and/or Jet)
Don't forget the ever-present ad hominem attack.
[+]
All this happened while Ray Rice was beating his wife ! So I think Ray Rice really knows what happened in Benghazi.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
Benghazi has been fully explained in numerous hearings. Just because the neocons dismiss the thorough explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its hilarious to watch tho, it really is. I should look up when those new hearings are.
It's been fully explained? I guess that explains why one of the American security officers just wrote a book about the incident because nobody was asking questions to a guy who was actually there.
Maybe because he didn't know anything that someone higher than him knew? What "new" information did his book bring?
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
There are no "us vs them" statements? You're not taking a side? What forum do you think you're on?
When you don't have a rebuttal, you use various excuses and approaches, as demonstrated by Pleebo and Jet.
1) The Fallacy Excuse
2) The passive-aggressive approach
3) The "attempt to ridicule" approach
4) The Definition excuse
5) The Subject-Change method
All of which have been used on this very thread too....
(incoming passive-aggressive counter from either Pleebo and/or Jet)
Don't forget ever-present ad hominem attack.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
(incoming passive-aggressive counter from either Pleebo and/or Jet)
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Darrell Issa, the Republican most aggressively pressing Benghazi accusations, says he has "suspicions" that Hillary Clinton gave "stand down" orders to stop military resources from deploying to Benghazi even though a Republican report to the Armed Services Committee says that no such "stand down" order was issued.
The "stand down" order is under question. The security officer I mentioned earlier said he received one, though he is only willing to trace it to the person who gave the order and not necessarily Hillary Clinton. Again, I don't think there was any scandal on the ground, just bad-decision making. The only scandal I see is political in nature.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
There is no cop-out, no scandal and no "us vs them" statements, you're under the assumption that I'm taking a side, and I'm not.
There are no "us vs them" statements? You're not taking a side? What forum do you think you're on?
When you don't have a rebuttal, you use various excuses and approaches, as demonstrated by us local neocons
1) Using fallacies
2) The passive-aggressive approach
3) The "attempt to ridicule" approach
4) being ignorant
5) The Subject-Change method
All of which have been used on this very thread too....
(incoming stupid statement from a neocon
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Darrell Issa, the Republican most aggressively pressing Benghazi accusations, says he has "suspicions" that Hillary Clinton gave "stand down" orders to stop military resources from deploying to Benghazi even though a Republican report to the Armed Services Committee says that no such "stand down" order was issued.
The "stand down" order is under question. The security officer I mentioned earlier said he received one, though he is only willing to trace it to the person who gave the order and not necessarily Hillary Clinton. Again, I don't think there was any scandal on the ground, just bad-decision making. The only scandal I see is political in nature.
You forgot another one, King. The "using neocon as an insult without actually knowing what it means" comeback.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
None of us know what neocon means so we're going to pretend it means something else so we can attack people on it
Yeah: I know.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
You forgot another one, King. The "using neocon as an insult without actually knowing what it means" comeback.
Well, that's mainly used by Jet and Vic, and rarely by any of the other liberals here. So it's not really a global thing tbh.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Darrell Issa, the Republican most aggressively pressing Benghazi accusations, says he has "suspicions" that Hillary Clinton gave "stand down" orders to stop military resources from deploying to Benghazi even though a Republican report to the Armed Services Committee says that no such "stand down" order was issued.
The "stand down" order is under question. The security officer I mentioned earlier said he received one, though he is only willing to trace it to the person who gave the order and not necessarily Hillary Clinton. Again, I don't think there was any scandal on the ground, just bad-decision making. The only scandal I see is political in nature.
You completely miss the point. I don't agree with some other Republicans about making the actual event into a scandal, just the coverup designed to protect the butts of liberal leaders going into an election.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
You forgot another one, King. The "using neocon as an insult without actually knowing what it means" comeback.
Well, that's mainly used by Jet and Vic, and rarely by any of the other liberals here. So it's not really a global thing tbh.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Darrell Issa, the Republican most aggressively pressing Benghazi accusations, says he has "suspicions" that Hillary Clinton gave "stand down" orders to stop military resources from deploying to Benghazi even though a Republican report to the Armed Services Committee says that no such "stand down" order was issued.
The "stand down" order is under question. The security officer I mentioned earlier said he received one, though he is only willing to trace it to the person who gave the order and not necessarily Hillary Clinton. Again, I don't think there was any scandal on the ground, just bad-decision making. The only scandal I see is political in nature.
You completely miss the point. I don't agree with some other Republicans about making the actual event into a scandal, just the coverup designed to protect the butts of liberal leaders going into an election.
There wasn't a coverup though...
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.