GOP Benghazi-panel staffer fired after questioning panel's partisan focus on Hillary

[Bowfinger]

I provided the Breitbart link...why doesn't that make it all better for you?


Oh please...wtf is wrong with you? Your psoriasis flaring up again?


Look...if you don't want to derail this thread then don't bring up your horseshit in the first place as if it was "fact, failing to qualify them yourself, and failing to offer context or source citations to let others make their own assessments". The stench of your hypocrisy is especially strong today.

Sweetie, you launched a dishonest attack against Shira. I called you on it. Everything since has been you crying and blame-shifting.

Toodles.

 

[feralkid]

Oh brother...you apparently didn't understand the context of my response to Bowfinger. He was making the case that since the article cited mentioned the other side of the story (twice) that this somehow lends credibility to the source. I gave him a source that mentions the other side of the story several times...but I knew he wouldn't like this source (or you for that matter). There is no pleasing you guys it seems....so forgive me if I choose not to play your little games.

There were allegations and a response to these allegations...who is telling the truth, we don't know. But this particular incident sure does fit the narrative and that's "proof" enough for some...which was my point from the very beginning.

 

[VRAMdemon]

$5 Million of taxpayer money and counting! that's some fiscal responsibility right there!

21st century GOP muckraking 101...

Create a open ended investigation. Just keep investigating until something - anything - comes up that can be blown into a scandal against your political enemy, and if no scandal arises then simply create the atmosphere of suspicion and use that atmosphere as a bludgeon against your opponent.

 

[Jhhnn]

$5 Million of taxpayer money and counting! that's some fiscal responsibility right there!

21st century GOP muckraking 101...

Create a open ended investigation. Just keep investigating until something - anything - comes up that can be blown into a scandal against your political enemy, and if no scandal arises then simply create the atmosphere of suspicion and use that atmosphere as a bludgeon against your opponent.

Ken Starr is their hero!

 

[trenchfoot]

Silly Repubs running back and forth across five lanes of a no speed limit freeway to see which one of them can bring the most attention to themselves.

I'm wondering when they're going to realize that the drivers in the speeding cars are all Democrats and they're swerving because they're NOT wanting to avoid hitting them.

 

[Greenman]

Oh, look, DSF can paraphrase Benghazi panel talking points as though they were established facts, and he doesn't even bother to tell us they're Benghazi panel talking points.

Such an honest poster is DSF.

The problem is that "established facts" are the facts you want to believe.
Your entire rhetoric is always based on belittling others and only believing the "facts" that you agree with.

 

[shira]

The problem is that "established facts" are the facts you want to believe.
Your entire rhetoric is always based on belittling others and only believing the "facts" that you agree with.

So your claim is that 100% of every one of my posts is put-downs of others? This is your perception of reality?

(Do you see what I just did there? Does this constitute "belittling" you? Or am I making a justified attack on your absurdly black and white assertion?)

It WOULD be fair to state that a major element of many of my posts is to hold up to ridicule statements by others that I view as ridiculous, hypocritical, or intellectually dishonest (or, from my point of view, which are patently ridiculous, hypocritical, or intellectually dishonest). As I pointed out, I've done exactly that in the first paragraph of this very post. Even you - who wrote the statement which I've bolded - cannot possibly dispute that what you wrote is inaccurate. So would you expect I'd give you a pass on making such a dishonest claim? Would you expect that I'd give ANY poster here a pass when they make patently false claims?

Now, getting to your point about "established facts:" I make a point of including links to content that supports statements I make in posts here. More than that, I frequently quote relevant parts of the linked content. So it's extremely easy for others to check the linked content and decide for themselves what they believe is true.

By contrast, DSF didn't provide any link whatsoever. He simply made a "statement of fact." Anyone reading his post would have assumed that what he wrote was "fact," not "opinion."

I assume you understand the difference between the reporting of news and editorializing. If you don't know the difference, a comparison of the article linked in the OP and the article eventually linked by DSF will make the distinction clear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

By contrast, DSF didn't provide any link whatsoever. He simply made a "statement of fact." Anyone reading his post would have assumed that what he wrote was "fact," not "opinion."

You knew damn well that I was echoing the committee's response to Podliska’s allegations. Your dishonesty has no bounds.

Oh, look, DSF can paraphrase Benghazi panel talking points as though they were established facts, and he doesn't even bother to tell us they're Benghazi panel talking points.

 

[CitizenKain]

Republicans are liars and dishonest people, this is surprising why?