Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[rigney]

Consider this perspective. It had nothing to do with what "party" people are affiliated with. It has to do with facts vs assumptions on a science forum. You had questions, but they were all FOX News "loaded" questions, the type that imply something is wrong without actually stating that something is wrong. The type that makes viewers want to click the link to find out if there really is something wrong.

 

I've done this thousands of times, and not just with FOX News. It's classic profit-based hype masquerading as journalism. "Is our drinking water as safe as officials are telling us?" "The real reason why this German manufacturer won't sell to the US." "Invisibility cloak now a reality, scientists say." And when you frantically click to see "the truth", you find out that yes, our drinking water is indeed as safe as officials are telling us, and that the German manufacturer has discontinued a certain model and won't be selling it to any country anymore, and finally that this "cloak" that you thought made people invisible when you wear it isn't a really piece of clothing at all.

 

And that's exactly what your posts seem to do, rigney. They seemed to interject some kind of inference that President Obama pulled the security detail from Ambassador Stevens or secretly gave the order for the CIA to have him killed under the guise of a false attack on the embassy. When we asked for facts and clicked your links, we got nothing of substance, just suppositions being inserted like suppositories. Even your title sounded like some hokey tabloid sensationalism. So I hope you can see that it wasn't partisan politics that prompted the reactions here, it was your "nothing to do with being factual, only supposition" approach that raised the hackles of the science-minded.

 

rigney says: Perhaps then we should do away with all scientific research and religious thought since probably 90% of either is still little more than supposition and theory?

[John Cuthber]

#1 3 October 2012 - 06:16 PM rigney Baryon

The questions I first asked to begin this thread were:

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.[/b]

Yes! After those questions, and the crap started to flow; I was pissed. I had done nothing more than post an inquiry asking for possible answers. but after a couple of months of stonewalling loaded with BS, I did question the present administrations involvement. After the first few replies on the forum to these questions I realized it was only a matter of which party you were affiliated with. After 2 months and having come up with your own opinions, you now demand answers from me when yours are only well thought out supposition and no closer to the facts than mine. Cheers

He's dead because someone killed him. It's not clear who did that but it wasn't Mr Obama: he wasn't there at the time.

 

"Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth."

What leads you to believe that what was said isn't true?

Is it just innuendo from Fox news or do you actually have credible evidence of dishonesty?

I remind you that I asked this a lot and you were not able to answer. You just evaded the question.

"Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign?"

Clearly.

 

" I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue."

If there was a discussion you wouldn't have seen it because it wouldn't have been on Fox.

 

Are you beginning to realise that there's a pattern here?

[Phi for All]

Perhaps then we should do away with all scientific research and religious thought since probably 90% of either is still little more than supposition and theory?

Another point missed completely, another knee-jerk retort with no substance, another red herring thrown out to avoid the real issue.

[D H]

Do you actually believe the Democratic Party is more special than the Republican Party?

Almost everyone here other than you will say that neither party has a lock on "specialness". In Europe, it's the left rather than the right that is anti-science. Until recently (40 years being recent), it was the left rather than the right that was anti-science in the US. iNow's statistics don't show the historical context. It used to be the case that those with a post-bachelors education tended to vote strongly Republican.

 

Somewhere in the last twenty years all of that has changed. The Republicans have become the party of the ignorant, the old, and the utterly clueless. The Republicans have declared war on women, on immigrants, on minorities, on gays and lesbians, and on those with a math-and-science lifestyle. The big tent philosophy that predominated in the Reagan era has given ground to the tiny pup tent philosophy.

 

Ohio and Florida have been the keys to the last several Presidential elections. Those keys are about to be turned over to Texas. There are signs, rather significant signs, that Texas will become a swing state, and possibly even a blue state, as soon as 2016. If that happens, a Republican won't be President for a long, long time, and the Republicans will lose their grip on the House as well. Texas Democrats see those signs of a blue, blue Texas, and they are very much chomping at the bit to get their hands on the reigns of the 2020 census gerrymander.

[rigney]

Another point missed completely, another knee-jerk retort with no substance, another red herring thrown out to avoid the real issue.

With you having no facts to refute my suspicions, isn't your satement nothing more than innuendo and supposition?

 

He's dead because someone killed him. It's not clear who did that but it wasn't Mr Obama: he wasn't there at the time.

 

rigney: Not to mince words, but can you unequivocally swear to your statement?

 

"Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth."

What leads you to believe that what was said isn't true?

Is it just innuendo from Fox news or do you actually have credible evidence of dishonesty?

I remind you that I asked this a lot and you were not able to answer. You just evaded the question.

"Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign?"

Clearly.

 

" I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue."

If there was a discussion you wouldn't have seen it because it wouldn't have been on Fox.

 

Are you beginning to realise that there's a pattern here?

Edited November 13, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

We can't refute your suspicions until you tell us what they are.

 

I can swear categorically that he's dead because someone killed him.

 

Now, why don't you tell us what it is that you suspect so we can look into whether it's plausible or not.

Who do you think did what and when do you think they did it?

[rigney]

We can't refute your suspicions until you tell us what they are.

 

I can swear categorically that he's dead because someone killed him.

 

Now, why don't you tell us what it is that you suspect so we can look into whether it's plausible or not.

Who do you think did what and when do you think they did it?

And you are absolutely sure without any proof other than what you have read and heard provide you proof of these men being dead? My thoughts and suppositions are only theory, yet; you can swear without equivocation that our government wasn't involved in this atrocity. That takes a lot of faith.

[John Cuthber]

And you are absolutely sure without any proof other than what you have read and heard provide you proof of these men being dead? My thoughts and suppositions are only theory, yet; you can swear without equivocation that our government wasn't involved in this atrocity. That takes a lot of faith.

Strawman. I didn't swear anything of the sort.

I did say that the guy was dead.

On this matter I'm prepared to take your word for it. it was, after all, you who asked who killed them.

 

Now stop stalling and answer the question.

Who do you think did what and when do you think they did it?

[akh]

With you having no facts to refute my suspicions, isn't your satement nothing more than innuendo and supposition?

 

I the burden is yours, to provide evidence to your suspicions, to go beyond mere suspicion. There is no need to refute something which has not been established.

[rigney]

Strawman. I didn't swear anything of the sort.

John Cuthber, on 13 November 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:I can swear categorically that he's dead because someone killed him.

I did say that the guy was dead.

On this matter I'm prepared to take your word for it. it was, after all, you who asked who killed them.

Have you ever witnessed me categorically swearing to anything? Edited November 13, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Somewhere in the last twenty years all of that has changed. The Republicans have become the party of the ignorant, the old, and the utterly clueless. The Republicans have declared war on women, on immigrants, on minorities, on gays and lesbians, and on those with a math-and-science lifestyle. The big tent philosophy that predominated in the Reagan era has given ground to the tiny pup tent philosophy.

Said another way, they've become the party of the lower middle class uneducated angry white men.

 

 

 

 

More here: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Edited November 13, 2012 by iNow

[rigney]

Said another way, they've become the party of the lower middle class uneducated angry white men.

 

Determined to go off topic iNow? But if what you say is true, then why are you and those who want something for nothing trying to rob the pockets of the uneducated rich, regardless of party?

[D H]

Determined to go off topic iNow?

How can you blame him? iNow's post was post #312 in this thread. You've had 311 chances to bring this thread on topic and you have steadfastly refused to do so.

[iNow]

Determined to go off topic iNow? But if what you say is true, then why are you and those who want something for nothing trying to rob the pockets of the uneducated rich, regardless of party?

I don't "want something for nothing." I want benefits that I've paid for. Big difference.

 

To address another point you've introduced... Returning the levels of taxation on the upper 1% of our country back to the levels that we had in place in the 1990s under Bill Clinton is not equal to "trying to rob the pockets of the rich." That's just hyperbole from the manufactured reality of your bullshit mountain news and information sources. It also ignores the obvious economic benefit of ensuring a minimum baseline and avoiding an austerity crisis.

 

Btw - You've also missed the point of the data. I specifically said the uneducated lower middle class, not the uneducated rich. Most rich are quite well educated since they can afford it, so there's always that.

[Iggy]

Said another way, they've become the party of the lower middle class uneducated angry white men.

 

 

 

 

More here: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

I'd love to hear a conservative say that the democratic party has become the party of angry black men on the same basis. Look at the graph, more black people voted for Barack, so it must be a party of black people. You would spot that non-sequitur if a conservative said it, and the firestorm brought down on that person in this thread would be unequaled.

 

You can't think that graph or link shows that the republican party is mostly lower middle class and uneducated and angry and white and men. You can't think that there is anything wrong with being lower middle class or uneducated or angry or white or a man. So what are you really saying?

 

They're all a bunch of rednecks must be the implication. When conservatives say "poor, uneducated, angry, black men" the implication is clear enough. I don't like it on either side.

[rigney]

I don't "want something for nothing." I want benefits that I've paid for. Big difference.

 

To address another point you've introduced... Returning the levels of taxation on the upper 1% of our country back to the levels that we had in place in the 1990s under Bill Clinton is not equal to "trying to rob the pockets of the rich." That's just hyperbole from the manufactured reality of your bullshit mountain news and information sources. It also ignores the obvious economic benefit of ensuring a minimum baseline and avoiding an austerity crisis.

 

Btw - You've also missed the point of the data. I specifically said the uneducated lower middle class, not the uneducated rich. Most rich are quite well educated since they can afford it, so there's always that.

Mmmm, and you are quite sure? Can you actually make the distinction between a rich educated man and an uneducated one who has busted his hump bringing his life to fruition? If so I'm impressed. Otherwise you are terribly mistaken about the uneducated hard working lower middle class of which I am proud to be one. But those who want something for nothing, are as offal. Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Mmmm, and you are quite sure? Can you actually make the distinction between a rich educated man and an uneducated one who has busted his hump bringing his life to fruition? If so I'm impressed. Otherwise you are terriboly mistaken about the uneducated hard working lower middle class of which I am proud to be one. But those who want something for nothing, are as offal.

 

I call horse feathers , you are not lower middle class or uneducated rigney..

 

maybe lower upper class, or higher middle class but never lower middle class, maybe right of left lower upper middle class, or maybe lower higher middle lower upper class....

[Phi for All]

Mmmm, and you are quite sure? Can you actually make the distinction between a rich educated man and an uneducated one who has busted his hump bringing his life to fruition? If so I'm impressed. Otherwise you are terriboly mistaken about the uneducated hard working lower middle class of which I am proud to be one. But those who want something for nothing, are as offal.

This has always been a big part of the problem. Ultra-conservatives make many assumptions that they are the hard-working righteous ones, and everyone they don't know wants something for nothing, has their hands in the pockets of the rich, has wanton unprotected sex and abortions every month, refuses to work, is probably doing something illegal right now, supports evil presidents who lie about killing their ambassadors and are as offal. They refuse to see the huge amount of good because they just know there is some bad out there somewhere.

[Moontanman]

This has always been a big part of the problem. Ultra-conservatives make many assumptions that they are the hard-working righteous ones, and everyone they don't know wants something for nothing, has their hands in the pockets of the rich, has wanton unprotected sex and abortions every month, refuses to work, is probably doing something illegal right now, supports evil presidents who lie about killing their ambassadors and are as offal. They refuse to see the huge amount of good because they just know there is some bad out there somewhere.

 

 

HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT? THAT IS SOOO SPOOOKY!!!

[akh]

rigney says: Perhaps then we should do away with all scientific research ....since probably 90% of either is still little more than supposition and theory?

 

Well that pretty much sums up your purpose here. If it wasn't thinly veiled to start, you went ahead and and conceded your true intent. So, given your predilection for attacking science, or any form of evidence based investigation, I need to ask a question.

 

Rigney, is this the end of your trolling?

If it is not the end, I am sure you will keep posting garbage. However, it will be with full admission of your intent to troll. If it is the end, perhaps you may find something more constructive to do with your life.

[Moontanman]

I'd love to hear a conservative say that the democratic party has become the party of angry black men on the same basis. Look at the graph, more black people voted for Barack, so it must be a party of black people.

 

 

I live in the Deep South, I can categorically (more or less) say three things about this Place, The republicans are generally the party of angry old white men... The democrats are generally the party of angry old black men... and having money makes both those things disappear when the two interact on a personal basis...

[iNow]

You can't think that there is anything wrong with being lower middle class or uneducated or angry or white or a man. So what are you really saying?

Actually, I DO think there is something wrong with being uneducated and angry. I guess I'm one of those "educated elitists" Rick Santorum referenced who would love college to be available to everyone in the nation regardless of position in life.

 

All I'm saying, though, is DH was quite correct about the ever shrinking audience to which republicans are trying to appeal, and that almost no matter how yous slice the data this conclusion gets reinforced.

 

Even republican senator Lindsey Graham acknowledges this.

 

If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough I’m going to go nuts. We’re not losing 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.

~Linsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina (November 5, 2012)

 

The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.

~Linsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina (August 2012)

 

 

I will, however, stipulate that my post above was sloppy and my point not well conveyed. I submitted it quickly between meetings at work.

 

---

 

those who want something for nothing, are as offal.

You don't seem to get that there are only a tiny few in this country who "want something for nothing," yet you assume these folks make up the entire group.

 

The VAST majority of the rest who fall into that 47% you're implicitly describing here who receive benefits and don't pay federal income taxes are military personnel, elderly people who have paid into the system their entire lives, people who were laid off through no fault of their own and cannot find work despite submitted scores of resumes each day... people who DO pay state and local and retail taxes.

[rigney]

I call horse feathers , you are not lower middle class or uneducated rigney..

 

maybe lower upper class, or higher middle class but never lower middle class, maybe right of left lower upper middle class, or maybe lower higher middle lower upper class....

Perhaps if you had come down to the beach a couple of years back, you would have known for sure?

 

How can you blame him? iNow's post was post #312 in this thread. You've had 311 chances to bring this thread on topic and you have steadfastly refused to do so.

No. 311? " Damn", I can't believe this trash post has gone on so long. Oh I've tried to keep it legitimate , but somehow only a few of you want to stay the course. What are we going to do now that this crap is chin deep and someone is about to make a bigger wave?

 

Actually, I DO think there is something wrong with being uneducated and angry. I guess I'm one of those "educated elitists" Rick Santorum referenced who would love college to be available to everyone in the nation regardless of position in life.

 

All I'm saying, though, is DH was quite correct about the ever shrinking audience to which republicans are trying to appeal, and that almost no matter how yous slice the data this conclusion gets reinforced.

 

Even republican senator Lindsey Graham acknowledges this.

 

~Linsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina (November 5, 2012)

 

~Linsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina (August 2012)

 

 

I will, however, stipulate that my post above was sloppy and my point not well conveyed. I submitted it quickly between meetings at work.

 

---

 

 

You don't seem to get that there are only a tiny few in this country who "want something for nothing," yet you assume these folks make up the entire group.

 

The VAST majority of the rest who fall into that 47% you're implicitly describing here who receive benefits and don't pay federal income taxes are military personnel, elderly people who have paid into the system their entire lives, people who were laid off through no fault of their own and cannot find work despite submitted scores of resumes each day... people who DO pay state and local and retail taxes.

I have never denied anyone who is in need! My problem is with those who cry poor mouth and lie their sorry asses off. Edited November 14, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I have never denied anyone who is in need! My problem is with those who cry poor mouth and lie their sorry asses off.

So of course you listen when FOX News does a story on someone who's caught abusing the system, and they of course relate that to the guy on the other side of the country who got caught doing the same thing, and pretty soon they've made it look like an epidemic. You want to know what the real problem is? Most welfare fraud (some studies show 93%) is perpetrated by the vendors who hold government contracts to provide welfare services, not by the welfare recipients themselves. It's the doctors, dentists, child care facilities, shop owners and other private businesses, the ones who are screaming about unfair taxes, that are scamming the system.

[iNow]

My problem is with those who cry poor mouth and lie their sorry asses off.

Why do you feel such a compulsive need to talk about Republicans so hatefully?