What difference does it make!?!?! Part Two

[TheGreatGatsby]

Back when Hillary bawled about what difference does it make that there were four dead American soldiers, real Americans were outraged. But lost in the shuffle was the callous and fallacious scenario that she tries to present to us:

The fact is we have four dead Americans: Was it because of a protest or because guys out for a walk one night decided they'd go kill some Americans?

Then of course, Hillary asked her rhetorical question of What difference does it make? But frankly, I think that besides the callousness of that infamous question, we should remember that her preceding statement is nothing short of pathological. Americans didn't die because of a protest gone awry; and it most certainly wasn't because people decided to kill on a whim. At that point, HILLARY KNEW DAMN WELL THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, and she was more than willing to play it off as something else.

I'm sorry, but that's not the kind of person that I want watching my dog let alone being the president of the United States. Anyone who votes for her is not a patriot of any order, PERIOD.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So what difference, at that point, did it make?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So what difference, at that point, did it make?

It depends on what your definition of make is......

Not to mention, I really don't know what the it is in your question.

 

[occupied]

Your condemnation is useless unless you have a realistic better idea of what should have been done.

 

[konradv]

Remind us, what was the question she was answering? We keep hearing about her response, but aren't reminded of what prompted it. If it was about why the administration initially put too much weight on the effects of a video, her response seems right on target.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Your condemnation is useless unless you have a realistic better idea of what should have been done.

Way to try to move the goalposts, Sparky. We're not even talking about what she should have done. Nobody 'condemned' that. I was talking about your coward candidate pretending that a terrorist attack had not occurred.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Remind us, what was the question she was answering? We keep hearing about her response, but aren't reminded of what prompted it. If it was about why the administration initially put too much weight on the effects of a video, her response seems right on target.

You bring up the question. You remind us.

Her callous indifference is objectionable; and there is no excuse for pretending that the attack was not a terrorist attack. The question is therefore rendered irrelevant in any event.

 

[HenryBHough]

Hillary remembered to announce!

Or somebody reminded her.

Either way, what difference does it make?

 

[konradv]

Her callous indifference is objectionable; and there is no excuse for pretending that the attack was not a terrorist attack. The question is therefore rendered irrelevant in any event.

Callous indifference to what? Are you so into the propaganda you can't even remember what started it all. You brought it up, it's up to you oi explain it. I think she's perfectly right. Prove me wrong.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Her callous indifference is objectionable; and there is no excuse for pretending that the attack was not a terrorist attack. The question is therefore rendered irrelevant in any event.

Callous indifference to what? Are you so into the propaganda you can't even remember what started it all. You brought it up, it's up to you oi explain it. I think she's perfectly right. Prove me wrong.

Callous indifference to the men who died and their families (and to the American people in general), obviously.

And again, pretending that a coordinated terrorist attack did not occur is the matter at hand; not a question that you won't state. Nice try on confusing the issue, ass hat.

 

[Zander]

Hillary is so unlikeable and dishonest.

She is the best the Democrats have? Seriously?

 

[konradv]

Callous indifference to the men who died and their families (and to the American people in general), obviously. And again, pretending that a coordinate terrorist attack did not ocurr is the matter at hand; not a question that you won't state. Nice try on confusing the issue, ass hat.

Callous indifference is merely your take on the matter. As for whether the attack was due to a movie or terrorism or a combination of the two, what difference does it make? Either way the men are still dead and the confusion over the cause had nothing to do with the result. The people who are continuing the controversy on the basis of the cause are the ones that are callously indifferent. They're in it for the political points, NOT the truth.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Callous indifference to the men who died and their families (and to the American people in general), obviously. And again, pretending that a coordinate terrorist attack did not ocurr is the matter at hand; not a question that you won't state. Nice try on confusing the issue, ass hat.

Callous indifference is merely your take on the matter.

That's how you're gonna try and defend the callous indifference; as 'merely my take?' That's weak sauce, dude. If you don't have a real defense for Hillary's callous indifference, then just go ahead and say so.

 

[konradv]

That's how you're gonna try and defend the callous indifference; as 'merely my take?' That's weak sauce, dude. If you don't have a real defense for Hillary's callous indifference, then just go ahead and say so.

I don't need a defense when you don't even have a case. If we were arguing this in court, the judge would throw it out for insufficient evidence.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's how you're gonna try and defend the callous indifference; as 'merely my take?' That's weak sauce, dude. If you don't have a real defense for Hillary's callous indifference, then just go ahead and say so.

I don't need a defense when you don't even have a case. If we were arguing this in court, the judge would throw it out for insufficient evidence.

If we were arguing this in court, it would be a slam dunk case. Hillary's callous indifference is demonstrative and blatant.

 

[konradv]

If we were arguing this in court, it would be a slam dunk case. Hillary's callous indifference is demonstrative and blatant.

And yet you've still been unable to demonstrate it. Imagine that!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If we were arguing this in court, it would be a slam dunk case. Hillary's callous indifference is demonstrative and blatant.

And yet you've still been unable to demonstrate it. Imagine that!

Well, that certainly is "merely your take."

 

[jillian]

Back when Hillary bawled about what difference does it make that there were four dead American soldiers, real Americans were outraged. But lost in the shuffle was the callous and fallacious scenario that she tries to present to us:

The fact is we have four dead Americans: Was it because of a protest or because guys out for a walk one night decided they'd go kill some Americans?

Then of course, Hillary asked her rhetorical question of What difference does it make? But frankly, I think that besides the callousness of that infamous question, we should remember that her preceding statement is nothing short of pathological. Americans didn't die because of a protest gone awry; and it most certainly wasn't because people decided to kill on a whim. At that point, HILLARY KNEW DAMN WELL THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, and she was more than willing to play it off as something else.

I'm sorry, but that's not the kind of person that I want watching my dog let alone being the president of the United States. Anyone who votes for her is not a patriot of any order, PERIOD.

your lack of understanding as to what was said is truly pathetic.

 

[jillian]

If we were arguing this in court, it would be a slam dunk case. Hillary's callous indifference is demonstrative and blatant.

And yet you've still been unable to demonstrate it. Imagine that!

Well, that certainly is "merely your take."

no. it is the take of anyone who is normal.

 

[Liminal]

Your condemnation is useless unless you have a realistic better idea of what should have been done.

Way to try to move the goalposts, Sparky. We're not even talking about what she should have done. Nobody 'condemned' that. I was talking about your coward candidate pretending that a terrorist attack had not occurred.

Funny how GOP politicians knew it was a terrorist incident, completely unrelated to any video or other protests, within hours of the attack. How did they know that? What was the source of their information? The CIA and other intelligence agencies hadn't even begun to investigate the attack, but Republicans where absolutely sure about the facts before any had actually been released. How do you suppose they did that? Are they clairvoyant? And I wonder why they were so focused on that characterization? Almost as if they cared more about the perception than actually knowing about the details of the attack itself.