One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why the Constitution created Checks and Balances.
Page <<first <prev 8 of 10 next> last>>
Jun 16, 2019 15:53:14   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
It might be a good time to go over who in Congress cut back funding for protections to them.


Yes, everybody wants to save money, nobody wants to pay the piper when we do. I suspect that we are to trim the budget and still magically have all the funding necessary to maintain every department's current funding. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 16:26:34   #
son of witless
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Ah, the ignorance gambit, not a tactic I would utilize but you are free to try display all the ignorance that you wish to. That region was torn asunder with r**ting and protests regarding that video for days if not weeks prior to the attack in Banghazi without any of them ever seeing the video? Explain your logic on that claim. Perhaps you buried your head in the sand when the r**ting and protesting broke out in the region for protection. That only works if you are in the vicinity of the violence and if you are, it doesn't truly help any, you will still get harmed all the same. Perhaps you did so in order to not be traumatized by the violence happening abroad or to avoid actually knowing something new. Regardless of the reason you buried your head in the sand back then, the end result is still the same, the r**ting and protesting DID occur, despite your refusal to believe it.
Ah, the ignorance gambit, not a tactic I would uti... (show quote)


So you are saying that the good folks at Brittanica.com got it wrong ? I tried to get as neutral a source as possible for our discussion.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2012-B******i-attacks

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 17:18:20   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
son of witless wrote:
So you are saying that the good folks at Brittanica.com got it wrong ? I tried to get as neutral a source as possible for our discussion.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2012-B******i-attacks


And your point is? Nowhere in that very short summation was there any indication what triggered the violence as far back as February of that year and continuing up until and beyond the attack on our embassy there. I suspect that you are meaning that it was al-Qaeda that attacked the embassy, not Ansar al-Sharia. what part of "On the night of September 11, about 150 Islamic militants associated with an al-Qaeda >>>affiliate<<< stormed the compound and set fire to the main building." are you having trouble with?

I am sorry but you have once again failed to prove your point.

Reply
 
 
Jun 16, 2019 17:58:48   #
Hug
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
It's your story, tell it how you like, pardon me if I see it for what it actually is. The evidence is in where the comment is aimed, but that is alright, I can ignore sleights with the best of them.


Evidence:

"dtucker300 (a regular here) (online) Joined: Feb 8, 2017 Posts: 1331

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Certainly, as soon as they quit ignoring facts. I can understand different opinions, but facts are facts and not subjective.


Not all facts are objectively equal. You can't make facts out of opinions no matter how many times you repeat them. Nevertheless, Ad hominems do not make your points any stronger as it is fallacious reasoning."

Discussion done.
It's your story, tell it how you like, pardon me i... (show quote)

Facts can be made out of opinions. What you believe is fact to you. If you believe the moon is purple and green, then that is fact to you.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 18:07:53   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Hug wrote:
Facts can be made out of opinions. What you believe is fact to you. If you believe the moon is purple and green, then that is fact to you.


Clearly based on how many "conservatives" believe the crap from the ERWNJ web sites they depend on.



Edit: And those are "facts" that are based on opinions, not actual facts, actual facts aren't subjective.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 18:18:21   #
son of witless
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
And your point is? Nowhere in that very short summation was there any indication what triggered the violence as far back as February of that year and continuing up until and beyond the attack on our embassy there. I suspect that you are meaning that it was al-Qaeda that attacked the embassy, not Ansar al-Sharia. what part of "On the night of September 11, about 150 Islamic militants associated with an al-Qaeda >>>affiliate<<< stormed the compound and set fire to the main building." are you having trouble with?

I am sorry but you have once again failed to prove your point.
And your point is? Nowhere in that very short summ... (show quote)


From the Britannica article, " But no evidence of similar protests in B******i could be substantiated, and other evidence emerged, suggesting that the attacks were a premeditated act by the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia. "

I fail to see why you keep towing the party line about this video. The attack was a well planned affair, definitely not a spontaneous eruption of passion like Hillary and the rest of Obama's STOOGES claimed.

To believe what you believe, one has to think that the street people of B******i never go out on their town with out their rocket propelled grenades. Hey maybe they do. I will look it in the B******i travel guide.


Reply
Jun 16, 2019 18:21:56   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
From the Britannica article, " But no evidence of similar protests in B******i could be substantiated, and other evidence emerged, suggesting that the attacks were a premeditated act by the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia. "

I fail to see why you keep towing the party line about this video. The attack was a well planned affair, definitely not a spontaneous eruption of passion like Hillary and the rest of Obama's STOOGES claimed.

To believe what you believe, one has to think that the street people of B******i never go out on their town with out their rocket propelled grenades. Hey maybe they do. I will look it in the B******i travel guide.

From the Britannica article, " But no eviden... (show quote)


What? You mean they don't carry mortars in their hip pockets when they go out to walk the dog?

Reply
 
 
Jun 16, 2019 18:34:33   #
Hug
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Clearly based on how many "conservatives" believe the crap from the ERWNJ web sites they depend on.



Edit: And those are "facts" that are based on opinions, not actual facts, actual facts aren't subjective.

The moon is purple and green. Prove to me that the moon is not purple and green.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 18:43:23   #
son of witless
 
archie bunker wrote:
What? You mean they don't carry mortars in their hip pockets when they go out to walk the dog?


I hear it is a dangerous neighborhood. You may as well bring an RPG to a knife fight.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 18:47:50   #
Hug
 
Archie, do you still have Buddy?

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 19:06:26   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
son of witless wrote:
From the Britannica article, " But no evidence of similar protests in B******i could be substantiated, and other evidence emerged, suggesting that the attacks were a premeditated act by the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia. "

I fail to see why you keep towing the party line about this video. The attack was a well planned affair, definitely not a spontaneous eruption of passion like Hillary and the rest of Obama's STOOGES claimed.

To believe what you believe, one has to think that the street people of B******i never go out on their town with out their rocket propelled grenades. Hey maybe they do. I will look it in the B******i travel guide.

From the Britannica article, " But no eviden... (show quote)


And now you claim there was no violence leading up to the attack? so why then did other countries pull their diplomats, which many did, if everything was sunny? Even YOU admitted to the fact that other countries pulled their diplomats due to the violence in a previous post of yours.

son of witless wrote:
WTF is the relevance of this ?

The point is, my friend that almost nobody saw the video until the Obama-Biden-Hillary Regime decided to to scapegoat the maker of the video to cover up their gross negligence. After Obama inc. pointed out the video, only then did Muslims come out of the woodwork and claim OFFENCE, and even then only stupid people believed it.

My comments may be uninformed, and yet they still make greater sense than your theories. By your logic, all of the violence leading up to the B******i murders, that convinced the British that prudence dictated that they remove their personnel, was due to the video which almost nobody saw.

And then, even then you are wrong. Even if the video had caused the attack, which it di-int, but even if it had, my point is that conditions in Libya mandated that the incompetent Obama-Biden-HillaRY Regime either EVACUATE as the British wisely did or grant the desperate requests for security upgrades coming from the forgotten folks on the ground serving in B******i !
WTF is the relevance of this ? br br The point i... (show quote)


Make up your mind, do you want to admit that there WAS violence leading up to the events or do you want to try to deny it? You can't have it both ways, there either was (which there was) violence leading up to the attack and had been since I believe February, or there wasn't, this isn't Schrodinger's cat here. There were MANY witnesses to the r**ts and protests leading up to the attack, what, where they paid witnesses?



Troll much? You have proven yourself to be a liar by contradicting your own post, that takes a special kind of stupid.




Edit: Any r**ts that may have occurred prior to July 2012 would have had to have had other causes of which there were several.

Wikipedia wrote:
Background
Main article: Innocence of Muslims
A trailer for a movie called Innocence of Muslims, described by Reuters as depicting the Islamic prophet, Muhammad "as a fool, a philanderer and a religious f**e" and showed him having sex,[23] was uploaded to YouTube in early July 2012, and an Arabic-dubbed version uploaded to YouTube on September 4, 2012.[27][28] NBC News described the trailer as depicting Muhammad "as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser."[29] The film was supported by the U.S. pastor Terry Jones, who had previously angered Muslims by announcing plans to burn the Quran publicly.[30] Reuters cited the broadcast of an excerpt of the trailer on Egyptian TV network Al-Nas on September 8, on a show hosted by Sheikh Khalad Abdalla, as "the flashpoint for the unrest." Prior to the 2011 revolution, Egyptian authorities periodically suspended al-Nas for "promoting religious or sectarian hatred."[31]

On September 11, hours before the attacks, in response to the promotion of the film and in anticipation of protests, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.[32]

The statement was no longer online as of September 13, 2012.
Background br Main article: Innocence of Muslims b... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jun 16, 2019 21:17:36   #
Cuda2020
 
Hug wrote:
Facts can be made out of opinions. What you believe is fact to you. If you believe the moon is purple and green, then that is fact to you.


You’ve strayed from reality to delusional and not knowing how to tell the difference .

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 21:46:09   #
Hug
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
You’ve strayed from reality to delusional and not knowing how to tell the difference .

Could be, but there is no way to change one's mind when they think something is true when in reality it is false.

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 22:00:44   #
Common_Sense_Matters
 
Hug wrote:
Could be, but there is no way to change one's mind when they think something is true when in reality it is false.


Correct, you can only present them with the facts and hope they consider it and put forth an honest attempt to verify the validity of those facts and perhaps one day they will come to realize that they were living in an alternate reality devoid of facts. I know that you were trying to subtly imply that it isn't you that is out of touch with reality, but who knows, maybe you will make an honest attempt to confirm that it isn't you that is out of touch with reality and IF you delve deep enough and find ACTUAL facts to confirm your beliefs... Who knows, maybe you can be redeemed.

I don't mean that you need to jump in and look to what you consider "liberal sources" just that you delve deep enough to discover the ACTUAL facts, not remain stuck on far right medias sources, try government sources, third party non-biased sources and the like. You mayt just come to the realization that many of the "f**e news" sources aren't really "f**e news".

Reply
Jun 16, 2019 22:05:31   #
son of witless
 
son of witless wrote:
From the Britannica article, " But no eviden... (show quote)


And now you claim there was no violence leading up to the attack? so why then did other countries pull their diplomats, which many did, if everything was sunny? Even YOU admitted to the fact that other countries pulled their diplomats due to the violence in a previous post of yours.

son of witless wrote:
WTF is the relevance of this ? br br The point i... (show quote)


Make up your mind, do you want to admit that there WAS violence leading up to the events or do you want to try to deny it? You can't have it both ways, there either was (which there was) violence leading up to the attack and had been since I believe February, or there wasn't, this isn't Schrodinger's cat here. There were MANY witnesses to the r**ts and protests leading up to the attack, what, where they paid witnesses?



Troll much? You have proven yourself to be a liar by contradicting your own post, that takes a special kind of stupid.




Edit: Any r**ts that may have occurred prior to July 2012 would have had to have had other causes of which there were several.

Wikipedia wrote:
Background br Main article: Innocence of Muslims b... (show quote)
Common_Sense_Matters

You are totally misrepresenting everything I said. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps even though I p***e myself on my clarity, perhaps I have failed you. Somehow you did not understand what I said. I feel really bad about that. I like to believe I can reach the most muddle infused L*****t. Wait you are not a l*****t, are you? You are something in the middle. Okay you are not a l*****t, even though you feel Trump's policies are bad, even though you bear him no malice.

" And now you claim there was no violence leading up to the attack? so why then did other countries pull their diplomats, which many did, if everything was sunny? Even YOU admitted to the fact that other countries pulled their diplomats due to the violence in a previous post of yours. "

Where did I claim that ? My entire point was the exact opposite of that. My entire point was that there was previous violence and therefore Obama and Hillary acted recklessly in not upgrading security enough or evacuating the Americans from B******i.

" Troll much? You have proven yourself to be a liar by contradicting your own post, that takes a special kind of stupid. "

Somewhere there is a disconnect between the words I wrote, and the words of mine that entered your brain. I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.