http://gamingtrend.com
July 26, 2014, 01:41:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Benghazi Gate  (Read 1634 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:54:54 PM »

This tragedy is not going away.  It appears from General Patreas's testimony today that there was an obvious effort to attempt to shift the tone of the story, and point the blame to some low rate YouTube video.

I'm amazed by a couple of things regarding this story:

1) If this had happened during a republican administration the outcry would be so much worse.

Do you all disagree?

2)  I cannot comprehend a scenario where anyone would think it is a wise idea to put Rice up as secretary of state, when it's obvious she was enormously influenced by the administration to run with the YouTube angle.

3) It appears to me that if proof is put forth that this administration knowingly mislead everyone regarding this issue, he has a major problem. 

What say you?

Eco
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15302


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2012, 06:06:21 PM »

Hoping for an intelligent discussion rather than more pointless Eco smearing.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8723



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2012, 06:25:36 PM »

1) Show me the outrage that accompanied the attacks in Calcutta, Karachi, Denpasar, Tashkent, Jeddah, Karachi, Damascus, and Athens, and I will hear you out. But as for right now, yes, I disagree.

2) Susan Rice is an ambassador.  When one makes statements, you go with what you believe the facts to be.  She is our ambassador to the UN, not the head of our intelligence services, which, by the way, made statements very much in the same vein initially.  Using the Bengazi attacks and information cloudiness to completely derail a person's career by something where they relied on others to provide accurate data is ridiculous.

3) IF the administration knowingly mislead everyone, then yes, he has a major problem.  In credibility, perhaps.  But it's not a criminal offense to lie to the American people.  That's kind of the government's stock in trade.  And attempting to prove that the misleading was deliberate is going to be a really tough thing to prove.

Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2012, 06:28:31 PM »

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 05:54:54 PM


1) If this had happened during a republican administration the outcry would be so much worse.

Do you all disagree?

I know I do.   All Clinton did was get a hummer and he was taken to court.

Quote
2)  I cannot comprehend a scenario where anyone would think it is a wise idea to put Rice up as secretary of state, when it's obvious she was enormously influenced by the administration to run with the YouTube angle.

Rice presented the unclassified talking points provided to her by intelligence agencies.  Sound familiar?  That's because Bush did the same thing with WMD's and he wasn't impeached, was he?

Quote
3) It appears to me that if proof is put forth that this administration knowingly mislead everyone regarding this issue, he has a major problem.  

What say you?


I say wait until the facts are all out there.  But "major problem"?  No.  As mentioned before, the previous administration did far worse and all they endured was pandering by the democrats and war protesters.  The same thing will happen with Republicans and Obama.  Such is politics.  There's a lot of really angry people out there who didn't get their way recently.  They'll gnash their teeth and scream bloody murder until they realize no one's paying any attention to them anymore and we'll move on.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 06:31:48 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1338


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2012, 06:33:06 PM »

What is the evidence of the administration knowingly misled the public (i.e., a cover-up) versus simply communicating information that they later learned was incorrect? This whole thing strikes me as a desperate attempt for it to be the former, without much evidence. For the life of me I can't figure out what the administration would gain by lying about the reason for the attack.
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4999


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2012, 06:35:02 PM »

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 05:54:54 PM

This tragedy is not going away.  It appears from General Patreas's testimony today that there was an obvious effort to attempt to shift the tone of the story, and point the blame to some low rate YouTube video.

I'm amazed by a couple of things regarding this story:

1) If this had happened during a republican administration the outcry would be so much worse.

Do you all disagree?

It's possible. I think this has been blown way out of proportion by the political climate surrounding it.

Quote
2)  I cannot comprehend a scenario where anyone would think it is a wise idea to put Rice up as secretary of state, when it's obvious she was enormously influenced by the administration to run with the YouTube angle.

I don't think we can definitively say that it's "obvious" that she was influenced by the administration to run with the youtube angle just yet. I guess I just adhere to that wacky "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

Quote
3) It appears to me that if proof is put forth that this administration knowingly mislead everyone regarding this issue, he has a major problem. 

What say you?

Eco

I guess I just don't see why it makes sense to say Al Queda was involved on day one if they weren't absolutely fucking sure they were. Yes, it's obvious that they were the prime suspects according to the CIA, but I'd damn well want to make sure.

I feel like this is a tempest in a teapot. It's a little hard for me to listen to McCain getting all puffy about how a special committee should have been created to investigate this in lieu of the two already handling it when he opts not to show up at the hearing at all the next day.
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2012, 06:39:41 PM »

Really, I find your post pretty naive.

It would be refreshing to have a discussion without the previous administration being brought up, but I realize that may be difficult because the current admin doesn't pass a chance to bring up GWB, and it's easier than actually addressing the issue.  Also, that tired argument conveniently leaves out the fact that the Iraq war was voted on my democrats an republicans alike.  This isn't the point though.

In fact, the real point has yet to be addressed so maybe someone else can actually add to the discussion.
Logged
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2012, 06:41:31 PM »

The above was in response to my new civil forum mate, hepcat.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2012, 06:42:15 PM »

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 06:39:41 PM

Really, I find your post pretty naive.

It would be refreshing to have a discussion without the previous administration being brought up, but I realize that may be difficult because the current admin doesn't pass a chance to bring up GWB, and it's easier than actually addressing the issue. 

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 05:54:54 PM


1) If this had happened during a republican administration the outcry would be so much worse.

Do you all disagree?


Quote
In fact, the real point has yet to be addressed so maybe someone else can actually add to the discussion.

The points were addressed.  I'm sorry they weren't the answers you wanted.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8723



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2012, 06:43:31 PM »

If you want a discussion that leaves out previous administrations, perhaps you should avoid having question number one ask for a comparison to how reactions would be different under a different political party's administration.  You opened the door, we're just walking through it.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3603


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2012, 06:47:06 PM »

Does anyone have any clue what this alleged coverup conspiracy was supposed to accomplish?  For all the effort there's been to leverage the deaths of four Americans at the hands of terrorists into a bludgeon to strike President Obama, I have not seen any explanation of *why* the administration would have crafted such a short-lived deception.

You don't engage in an elaborate conspiracy without a purpose in mind.  If the truth had been known from the start, or if Obama's cunning plot had succeeded and no one ever found out, how would the situation be any different?

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2012, 06:51:26 PM »

AA, maybe, and I mean this in the real sense because at this point who knows, the fact that the consulate requested more security and were turned down?

Seems like a possible reason for a coverup, especially ahead of the election.

Does anyone truly believe that the response would not have been far more severe of this had happened while a republican was in office?
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2012, 06:52:44 PM »

The only thing I've read that tries to explain why this is such a hot button topic for repubs is that they feel that Patraeus and the intelligence community had tried to warn the Obama administration that something was coming and that security needed to be beefed up.  

However, I would imagine the number of times the intelligence community reports that "something is coming" requires 12 hands and feet to count at the very least.  But it only takes one of those instances to prove true and catch an administration off guard to give ammunition to those who are looking for reasons fire their guns.  That's why I'm fairly confident this will just result in angry words and very little else.

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 06:51:26 PM

Does anyone truly believe that the response would not have been far more severe of this had happened while a republican was in office?

I just checked and I still don't.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 06:59:37 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8723



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2012, 06:52:59 PM »

Does anyone believe that you're going to actually take us at our word when we keep telling you that we do believe exactly that?
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2012, 07:24:24 PM »

No, I'm sure you "believe" that, still, I can't even fathom how that is possible.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2012, 07:25:23 PM »

We can.  I'd provide proof, but the last time I did that in this thread, you asked me to stop it.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2012, 07:32:49 PM »

I think it depends largely on what else the administration is believed to have done, regardless of whether that administration is red or blue.  The Bush Jr administration would have been raked over the coals.  Bush Sr, probably not.  I was too young to really know what the climate of such things was over the Reagan administration.

If it were a Republican administration right now though?  I do think there would be a greater sense of outrage given that it's clear the majority of Americans don't like Republicans.  You reap what you sow.
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6314


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2012, 07:42:49 PM »

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 06:39:41 PM

Really, I find your post pretty naive.

Is this all you have to add to your own discussion? I haven't seen you present a single shred of proof, or even any argument based on facts to indicate actual corruption or incompetence. Instead you make vague statements with no facts to back them up with and claim that the others, who actually do back up their statements, are naive?

Eco, if you want political discussion to be an exchange of opinion instead of facts, then please make that clear from the get-go. Right now you're simply misleading people by asking for facts when what you really want is their feelings (and what you really really want is for everyone to agree with you, which won't happen since your opinion is, as far as we can tell through your posts, unfounded).
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2012, 07:44:53 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on November 16, 2012, 07:42:49 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 06:39:41 PM

Really, I find your post pretty naive.

Is this all you have to add to your own discussion? I haven't seen you present a single shred of proof, or even any argument based on facts to indicate actual corruption or incompetence. Instead you make vague statements with no facts to back them up with and claim that the others, who actually do back up their statements, are naive?

Eco, if you want political discussion to be an exchange of opinion instead of facts, then please make that clear from the get-go. Right now you're simply misleading people by asking for facts when what you really want is their feelings (and what you really really want is for everyone to agree with you, which won't happen since your opinion is, as far as we can tell through your posts, unfounded).


Honestly though, Eco is what he is.  Berating at him clearly isn't going to change anything and may actually be what he is looking for, since there is some sort of persecution complex thing going for the hardcore republicans over the last few years (seriously, listen to Limbaugh).

Post in the threads if you find them interesting enough to contribute to, but asking Eco to change his stripes just isn't worth it at this point.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2012, 07:48:07 PM »

There are battles you can win, battles you may lose and battles that aren't worth waging.  This is an example of the latter.  I'll toss my opinions in as a time waster on a lazy afternoon at work, but I don't expect anything to come about due to my (or anyone else's) input.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8723



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2012, 07:49:39 PM »

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 07:24:24 PM

No, I'm sure you "believe" that, still, I can't even fathom how that is possible.

There were eight embassy attacks that I cited under George W. Bush's tenure.  And I missed one in Islamabad.  And I'm sure that some of those never entered my consciousness, and the rest were gone from it in under a week.  Karachi was attacked twice in that time.  Was embassy security not up to snuff during those times?  Were any requests for additional security denied?  Were these questions even asked at that time or since? 

So where is your belief founded that this current crisis would be subject to much more outrage if the political tables were reversed?
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15302


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2012, 07:55:58 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on November 16, 2012, 07:48:07 PM

There are battles you can win, battles you may lose and battles that aren't worth waging.  This is an example of the latter.  I'll toss my opinions in as a time waster on a lazy afternoon at work, but I don't expect anything to come about due to my (or anyone else's) input.

Quick grammar question. Can you use 'latter' when there are three things in a series?  Which one then, is the former? The first? What's the middle one called?

Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2012, 07:59:35 PM »

Quote from: ATB on November 16, 2012, 07:55:58 PM

Quote from: hepcat on November 16, 2012, 07:48:07 PM

There are battles you can win, battles you may lose and battles that aren't worth waging.  This is an example of the latter.  I'll toss my opinions in as a time waster on a lazy afternoon at work, but I don't expect anything to come about due to my (or anyone else's) input.

Quick grammar question. Can you use 'latter' when there are three things in a series?  Which one then, is the former? The first?

Quote
: of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or the last of several groups or things referred to 

Quote
What's the middle one called?

The middle one.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 08:01:54 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2012, 08:01:45 PM »

Quote from: ATB on November 16, 2012, 07:55:58 PM

Quote from: hepcat on November 16, 2012, 07:48:07 PM

There are battles you can win, battles you may lose and battles that aren't worth waging.  This is an example of the latter.  I'll toss my opinions in as a time waster on a lazy afternoon at work, but I don't expect anything to come about due to my (or anyone else's) input.

Quick grammar question. Can you use 'latter' when there are three things in a series?  Which one then, is the former? The first? What's the middle one called?



You can use latter on its own for any number of items in a series.  You are just referring to the last one.

If you use former AND latter, then you should use it with just two items.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15302


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2012, 10:51:32 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on November 16, 2012, 07:59:35 PM

The middle one.

Ha haaa! what if there are two middle ones?

Say: cats, dogs, mice, horses.

Now what!?
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2012, 10:54:24 PM »

Quote from: ATB on November 16, 2012, 10:51:32 PM

Quote from: hepcat on November 16, 2012, 07:59:35 PM

The middle one.

Ha haaa! what if there are two middle ones?

Say: cats, dogs, mice, horses.

Now what!?

the two in the middle.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2012, 10:58:26 PM »

at least there's no llamas.....
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Andrew Wonser
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 603

A porcupine quilt made of porcupine quills.


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2012, 11:45:35 PM »

Quote from: ATB on November 16, 2012, 10:51:32 PM

Quote from: hepcat on November 16, 2012, 07:59:35 PM

The middle one.

Ha haaa! what if there are two middle ones?

Say: cats, dogs, mice, horses.

Now what!?
We can only hope it doesn't come to that.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3603


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2012, 11:48:03 PM »

Quote from: Eco-Logic on November 16, 2012, 06:51:26 PM

AA, maybe, and I mean this in the real sense because at this point who knows, the fact that the consulate requested more security and were turned down?

Seems like a possible reason for a coverup, especially ahead of the election.


But why would the Obama administration want to provide such cover for the House Republicans who proudly slashed $451 million from embassy security funding?

Quote from: The Huffington Post
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.


Typically, the purpose of a scam is to help yourself at the other guys' expense.  Democrats are dreadfully out of practice, I'll confess, but to do the whole thing *backwards?!*

That makes even less sense than the idea that John McCain skipped a classified Homeland Security briefing about Benghazi to hold press conference complaining about the lack of briefings about Benghazi because he promised to teach a sick little girl the true meaning of "disingenuous."

-Autistic Angel
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2012, 07:13:50 AM »

Eco you are wasting your time, you aren't going to find anyone on this board who will ever admit that Obama or any dem could ever make a mistake or do anything wrong.   Only conservatives or republicans do such awful evil things.
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6314


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2012, 10:06:13 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on November 17, 2012, 07:13:50 AM

Eco you are wasting your time, you aren't going to find anyone on this board who will ever admit that Obama or any dem could ever make a mistake or do anything wrong.   Only conservatives or republicans do such awful evil things.

Well, as long as nobody will ever step up and say what exactly is wrong or what mistakes were made and why these are mistakes or is wrong, there's really nothing to talk about. We can't just sit around guessing at the factual basis for someone's claim if he makes no attempt to actually present, you know, facts. As in all things, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9133


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2012, 01:00:51 PM »

If you're going to shout "scandal" at the top of your lungs, is it wrong for those who don't see one to ask for proof as to why you believe so?  I've seen passionate, but substanceless claims only so far.  Please give us some actual facts to substantiate your claims.  If we can't refute them, then by all means, you can accuse folks of being willfully obstinate.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12424


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2012, 06:35:50 PM »

I'll just leave this here:

Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4999


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2012, 07:37:17 PM »

Quote
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Rice’s initial report was based on the unclassified version of the intelligence community’s understanding of events.
“The confusion arises between the difference between what is classified and unclassified,” Conrad said. “What is classified cannot be discussed publicly because it would reveal, potentially, the sources and methods used to gather intelligence.
“The notes that Ambassador Rice were speaking from were in an unclassified setting,” Conrad continued. “She did entirely the responsible thing by answering questions based on what was unclassified and agreed to by the entire the entire intelligence committee as reflecting their unclassified views at the moment she used those talking points.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83966_Page2.html

Emphasis is mine.

Can we PLEASE put this to rest.
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2012, 05:37:41 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on November 17, 2012, 06:35:50 PM

I'll just leave this here:



I  don't think a day has gone by in the past month where Fox News.com didn't have this "outrage" as one of the leading headlines. How anyone can use them as their only source of news is beyond me.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Clanwolfer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1374


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2012, 11:45:38 PM »

I'm actually entirely unsure what I'm meant to be mad about, and I consider myself typically pretty well-informed. That probably doesn't speak well to this having any legs as a scandal.
Logged

Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2012, 01:33:38 AM »

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get the outrage. Aside from some poor judgment, questionable decisions, and misinformation that became clear with hindsight, what exactly is the scandal supposed to be?
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Exodor
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 481


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2012, 06:04:09 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on November 19, 2012, 01:33:38 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't get the outrage. Aside from some poor judgment, questionable decisions, and misinformation that became clear with hindsight, what exactly is the scandal supposed to be?

Because Benghazi!

Quote
Obviously there's a huge temptation to turn any incident that could reflect badly on the opposition's government, such as the killing of an ambassador in a terrorist attack, into some kind of scandal. But this attempt is just absurd. The strategy here has been to shout "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!" until the public begins to think there's something fishy going on with Benghazi, and then move on to targeting administration figures because...Benghazi! If this actually works, we are all still in kindergarten.

 icon_biggrin
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2012, 06:55:09 PM »

I'm still waiting to see an explanation as to why this should be such a big deal from those that think it is a big deal. Other than the "well if this had happened to Bush then you would be screaming" rant, which was more than soundly shown not to be true.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6314


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2012, 08:27:13 PM »

Quote from: Scraper on November 19, 2012, 06:55:09 PM

I'm still waiting to see an explanation as to why this should be such a big deal from those that think it is a big deal. Other than the "well if this had happened to Bush then you would be screaming" rant, which was more than soundly shown not to be true.

Eh, they'll never return to the conversation, or at least never address the points raised. They've lost the argument and they know it, so instead of admitting defeat like any self-respecting person, they wait in the shadows to pounce in and create a different thread about a different "issue" to draw attention away from their failures.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.193 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.052s, 2q)