If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "There are some people in politics and in the press who can't be confused by the facts ...They just will not live in an evidence-based world"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 165
    More: Obvious, Benghazi  
•       •       •

2739 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2013 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 10:25:34 AM
So is FARK part of the press, or did she just forget forget about us?
 
2013-02-01 10:38:42 AM
This coming from a clinton is priceless.
 
2013-02-01 10:38:51 AM
"They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that's regrettable. It's regrettable for our political system and for the people who serve our government in very dangerous, difficult circumstances."

I really really REALLY hate to agree with Hillary Clinton but...yeah.  she's right about this one.
 
2013-02-01 10:39:17 AM
She's right, that's how she got away with personally murdering Vince Foster.
 
2013-02-01 10:39:24 AM
Hell, she just described half of the people I know.
 
2013-02-01 10:41:45 AM

Surly U. Jest: Hell, she just described half of the people I know.


As well as all the proud Fark Independents
 
2013-02-01 10:41:48 AM

skipjack: This coming from a clinton is priceless.


I'm pretty sure that she accepts the stained dress as evidence.
 
2013-02-01 10:41:49 AM

HotWingConspiracy: She's right, that's how she got away with personally murdering Vince Foster.


see, I would have gone the 'dodging bosnian snipers' thing instead of vince foster...but that's just me.
 
2013-02-01 10:41:50 AM

simplicimus: So is FARK part of the press, or did she just forget forget about us?


I know at least 16.5 farkers the headline is true of.
 
2013-02-01 10:43:11 AM

skipjack: This coming from a clinton is priceless.


Yea, seriously. When they won't even acknowledge the existence of their murder list, they're mourning the lack of belief in evidence?

THAT'S RICH!
 
2013-02-01 10:43:33 AM
This just in: people who think Jesus rode around on a dinosaur have problems with evidence-based arguments
 
2013-02-01 10:43:57 AM
Tea Baggers and Bible Pounders?
 
2013-02-01 10:45:14 AM
I know someone who's CONVINCED that Benghazi was lied about and that Obama was directly involved with Fast and Furious. I asked him for evidence on a couple of occasions and his only answer was essentially, "The government." He's an otherwise brilliant guy too, which is why it's so baffling.

Another person I'm less close to honestly thinks the federal government ships in the guns used in mass shootings, then employs mind control to cause the massacres. He also believes in chemtrails and follows Alex Jones religiously. The one time I asked him for evidence, he got upset, then sent me a link to a conspiracy theory radio show where a caller claimed he was a government agent and "confirmed" this information. He, to a lesser extent, is also very bright and has an impressive job.

That's what confuses me the most. This "derp" material is often not coming from morons. They're intelligent people who still somehow get suckered into this garbage, and I'm not really sure how or why.
 
2013-02-01 10:45:23 AM
unskwewedpollsromneylandslide.jpg
 
2013-02-01 10:45:46 AM

Weaver95: HotWingConspiracy: She's right, that's how she got away with personally murdering Vince Foster.

see, I would have gone the 'dodging bosnian snipers' thing instead of vince foster...but that's just me.


Well there was no evidence for the snipers, but reams of it for Foster. It's all laid out in a document titled "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: HITLERY CLINTON MURDER FACTS"
 
2013-02-01 10:45:47 AM
Whar concussion certifcit whar?
 
2013-02-01 10:48:00 AM
Is it me, or is the "lying" the administration did with Benghazi pretty much identical to the "lying" any police chief will make regarding a murder that's still being investigated or a hostage situation that's still being resolved? I like transparency, but there are some limited cases where for security or intelligence you limit the information that's released so you can continue a process without the disruptions releasing additional information would cause? It's not pretty and it's not ideal, but it can be seen as necessary.
 
2013-02-01 10:50:50 AM

Wayne 985: I know someone who's CONVINCED that Benghazi was lied about and that Obama was directly involved with Fast and Furious. I asked him for evidence on a couple of occasions and his only answer was essentially, "The government." He's an otherwise brilliant guy too, which is why it's so baffling.

Another person I'm less close to honestly thinks the federal government ships in the guns used in mass shootings, then employs mind control to cause the massacres. He also believes in chemtrails and follows Alex Jones religiously. The one time I asked him for evidence, he got upset, then sent me a link to a conspiracy theory radio show where a caller claimed he was a government agent and "confirmed" this information. He, to a lesser extent, is also very bright and has an impressive job.

That's what confuses me the most. This "derp" material is often not coming from morons. They're intelligent people who still somehow get suckered into this garbage, and I'm not really sure how or why.


People automatically discredit information that goes against their core beliefs.  If I had irrefutable evidence that the earth was in fact flat, 95% of the people wouldn't believe it  because it goes against everything that they believe.
 
2013-02-01 10:52:43 AM
Shut-up Hildog, we ain't be havin' no truck with none a' your Libfacts™.
 
2013-02-01 10:53:18 AM
Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.
 
2013-02-01 10:53:56 AM

Citrate1007: People automatically discredit information that goes against their core beliefs.  If I had irrefutable evidence that the earth was in fact flat, 95% of the people wouldn't believe it  because it goes against everything that they believe


The question, then, I guess, is how did we get to the point where a "core belief" for so many people is that the government is literally evil iff it is not composed of people from your team, and how do we reverse that trend?
 
2013-02-01 10:54:14 AM
If they'd stick to one set of facts it would be easier to get on board with the latest, greatest evidence.
 
2013-02-01 10:54:43 AM

Bloody William: Is it me, or is the "lying" the administration did with Benghazi pretty much identical to the "lying" any police chief will make regarding a murder that's still being investigated or a hostage situation that's still being resolved? I like transparency, but there are some limited cases where for security or intelligence you limit the information that's released so you can continue a process without the disruptions releasing additional information would cause? It's not pretty and it's not ideal, but it can be seen as necessary.


Obama administration regarding 4 deaths at an Embassy:  We are still gathering information.
Bush administration justifying a 2 wars:  WMD's Trust Us, National Security, Terrorism.
 
2013-02-01 10:54:50 AM

SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.


Lying Hillary after 9/11:  "We have 3,000 Americans dead, why does it matter whether it was terrorists or an errant crop duster?!?!?!"
 
2013-02-01 10:55:07 AM
Yeah, but liberals believe in crazy stuff like Reagan trading arms for hostages, or providing weapons to terrorists. Or propping up dictators like Saddam or Noriega, only for the next Republican administration to declare the same guys the worst enemies EVAR.

Plus liberals don't believe all 1.5 billion Muslims are just like the handful of whack jobs from some fundie Wahhabist sect, or that schools should take an even-handed approach, teaching both the theory of mathematics and the traditional, time-honored practice of numerology.

Heck, those libtards don't even believe in the gold standard.  I mean, its very name is: the gold standard. You don't get any better than that.
 
2013-02-01 10:55:34 AM

SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.


No, this is the one that inhabits reality, the one yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter inhabits the fevered imaginations of people like you and SJ.
 
2013-02-01 10:55:51 AM

SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.


I believe she was yelling about how the GOP mouthbreathers clung to a small unimportant detail and tried scale it up to a massive scandal. Hilldog put them in their place.
 
2013-02-01 10:56:51 AM

Wayne 985: I know someone who's CONVINCED that Benghazi was lied about and that Obama was directly involved with Fast and Furious. I asked him for evidence on a couple of occasions and his only answer was essentially, "The government." He's an otherwise brilliant guy too, which is why it's so baffling.

Another person I'm less close to honestly thinks the federal government ships in the guns used in mass shootings, then employs mind control to cause the massacres. He also believes in chemtrails and follows Alex Jones religiously. The one time I asked him for evidence, he got upset, then sent me a link to a conspiracy theory radio show where a caller claimed he was a government agent and "confirmed" this information. He, to a lesser extent, is also very bright and has an impressive job.

That's what confuses me the most. This "derp" material is often not coming from morons. They're intelligent people who still somehow get suckered into this garbage, and I'm not really sure how or why.



That part right there.  That's a sign of mental instability.  You should stay away from that person.  I'm okay with conspiracy theories--most are loony, some are funny, some are twisted mental exercises that make an odd sense if you're really cynical about things.

But the moment anyone actually believes in mind control is the moment they need to seek serious professional help, and possibly be removed from circulation, either for their safety or ours.
 
2013-02-01 10:57:09 AM

incendi: Citrate1007: People automatically discredit information that goes against their core beliefs.  If I had irrefutable evidence that the earth was in fact flat, 95% of the people wouldn't believe it  because it goes against everything that they believe

The question, then, I guess, is how did we get to the point where a "core belief" for so many people is that the government is literally evil iff it is not composed of people from your team, and how do we reverse that trend?


Fox News and the evolution of Jesus into a champion of capitalism & war.
 
2013-02-01 10:57:29 AM

max_pooper: SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.

I believe she was yelling about how the GOP mouthbreathers clung to a small unimportant detail and tried scale it up to a massive scandal. Hilldog put them in their place.


quite effectively at that.  Not that facts matter.  even facts that we've got video footage on...the Republican echo chamber is already hard at work rewriting history on those televised hearings.
 
2013-02-01 11:01:09 AM

SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.


Your selective information processing is truly a wonder, did you have to practice to ignore reality or was it a natural talent. She said that arguing about whether it was a planned attacked by terrorists or a random riot caused by an internet video is farking pointless.  4 Americans died and she shouldn't be having her time wasted by partisan GOP shills when she should be doing her job to make sure it doesn't happen again.

/Only a truly vile person would politicize the death of Americans.......skinnyhead.
 
2013-02-01 11:01:22 AM

SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.


Step 1 : Remove pants from head
Step 2 : Allow time for your eyes to adjust to sunlight
Step 3 : Enroll in remedial primary education

We'll see you in a few years.  The world won't be so scary and incomprehensible to you then.
 
2013-02-01 11:02:03 AM
Okay, let's have a thought experiment. Granting the premise, Hillary lied.

There. It's granted. I granted it.

Can anyone explain why? What the reason was? What the desired outcome was? What it was covering up?

You want to scream that Hillary lied? What's your endgame? What is the logic you're following besides "Hillary lied!" that makes the scenario you put forth have any sort of logic to it?

If you accept the premise that Hillary lied, can you explain the why and how beyond that premise to present a scenario that makes sense?
 
2013-02-01 11:02:47 AM

Car_Ramrod: There's that conservative respect for women I've read so much about.


Quit your lieberal war on women.  They wouldn't be offended if you didn't keep pointing it out to them.  Do you know how many can read and would have seen that anyway?  That's right, not very many.  Stop trying to stir up trouble where there isn't any.
 
2013-02-01 11:02:54 AM

max_pooper: SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.

I believe she was yelling about how the GOP mouthbreathers clung to a small unimportant detail and tried scale it up to a massive scandal. Hilldog put them in their place.


"What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

What is the fault in that? They always leave out the second sentence. Her point was, no matter what exactly happened, it is being investigated. That seems like a self-evident statement, but it drives the right wing nuts for some reason.
 
2013-02-01 11:03:04 AM

max_pooper: SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.

I believe she was yelling about how the GOP mouthbreathers clung to a small unimportant detail and tried scale it up to a massive scandal. Hilldog put them in their place.


Here's what Hillary said:  "We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The reason behind the attack sounds like an important detail to me, don't you think?
 
2013-02-01 11:04:16 AM

SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.


see, you had a PERFECT opportunity to reach back into history and mention Hillary's issues with 'reality control'....take the bosnian sniper fire story.  remember that one?  she flat out lied about dodging sniper fire in bosnia back when she was running in the DNC primary a few years back.  that would have been a great way to illustrate Hillary Clinton's issues with truth and reality in general.  But what did you do?  you went with standard issue OMGBENGHAZHI*fap*fap*fap* talking points.

And that's really why I have so very little respect for you.  you lack any sense of historical perspective, existing merely to spew whatever talking point that comes out of freeperville or the GOP/fox news media engine.
 
2013-02-01 11:04:39 AM

Bloody William: Okay, let's have a thought experiment. Granting the premise, Hillary lied.

There. It's granted. I granted it.

Can anyone explain why? What the reason was? What the desired outcome was? What it was covering up?

You want to scream that Hillary lied? What's your endgame? What is the logic you're following besides "Hillary lied!" that makes the scenario you put forth have any sort of logic to it?

If you accept the premise that Hillary lied, can you explain the why and how beyond that premise to present a scenario that makes sense?


A POLITICIAN LIED TO THEM DAMMIT!  CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME!!!
 
2013-02-01 11:05:01 AM

SkinnyHead: max_pooper: SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.

I believe she was yelling about how the GOP mouthbreathers clung to a small unimportant detail and tried scale it up to a massive scandal. Hilldog put them in their place.

Here's what Hillary said:  "We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The reason behind the attack sounds like an important detail to me, don't you think?


Speaking of important details, don't you think the line of questioning leading to that response is an important detail, if your intent is to honestly represent the situation and the specific implications of that response?
 
2013-02-01 11:07:22 AM

Wayne 985: I know someone who's CONVINCED that Benghazi was lied about and that Obama was directly involved with Fast and Furious. I asked him for evidence on a couple of occasions and his only answer was essentially, "The government." He's an otherwise brilliant guy too, which is why it's so baffling.

Another person I'm less close to honestly thinks the federal government ships in the guns used in mass shootings, then employs mind control to cause the massacres. He also believes in chemtrails and follows Alex Jones religiously. The one time I asked him for evidence, he got upset, then sent me a link to a conspiracy theory radio show where a caller claimed he was a government agent and "confirmed" this information. He, to a lesser extent, is also very bright and has an impressive job.

That's what confuses me the most. This "derp" material is often not coming from morons. They're intelligent people who still somehow get suckered into this garbage, and I'm not really sure how or why.


From NPR: What Do Aliens, Climate Change And Princess Di Have In Common?

Paper is here.  Good read for Farkers.  tl;dr version: People who believe in one conspiracy theory are very likely to believe in many, and they will rate themselves as extremely informed on the issues in question, even higher than people with bona fides.  They especially like misinformation that can be distilled into a simple 'sound bite' format, because the rebuttal will inevitably be more complicated, and complicated explanations allow for new conspiracies (often with an 'Ah hah!' bravado) to be posited to reduce cognitive dissonance.  Good paragraph addressing your point:

"Feelings of affiliation with a source also influence whether or not one accepts a piece of information at face value. For
example, Berinsky (2012) found that among Republicans, corrections of the death-panel myth were effective primarily when they were issued by a Republican politician. However, judgments of a source's credibility are themselves a function of beliefs: If you believe a statement, you judge its source to be more credible (Fragale & Heath, 2004). This interaction between belief and credibility judgments can lead to an epistemic circularity, whereby no opposing information is ever judged sufficiently credible to overturn dearly held prior knowledge. For example, Munro (2010) has shown that exposure to belief-threatening scientific evidence can lead people to discount the scientific method itself: People would rather believe that an issue cannot be resolved scientifically, thus discounting the evidence, than accept scientific evidence in opposition to their beliefs. Indeed, even high levels of education do not protect against the worldview-based rejection of information; for example, Hamilton (2011) showed that a higher level of education made Democrats more likely to view global warming as a threat, whereas the reverse was true for Republicans. This constitutes an extreme case of belief polarization (see also Malka, Krosnick, & Langer, 2009; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Similarly, among Republicans, greater education was associated with a greater increase in the belief that President Obama was a Muslim (he is not) between 2009 and 2010 (Sides, 2010).  Among Democrats, few held this mistaken belief, and education did not moderate the effect."
 
2013-02-01 11:08:02 AM
Did she ever find out who was behind the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" that caused her husband to "not have sex" with Monica Lewinsky.

 I don't care about Bengazi but Hillary is the LAST person in the world who should make this accusation.
 
2013-02-01 11:08:21 AM
Dear Christ, this thread went to troll-hell in a handbasket fast.
 
2013-02-01 11:08:57 AM

Bloody William: Okay, let's have a thought experiment. Granting the premise, Hillary lied.

There. It's granted. I granted it.

Can anyone explain why? What the reason was? What the desired outcome was? What it was covering up?

You want to scream that Hillary lied? What's your endgame? What is the logic you're following besides "Hillary lied!" that makes the scenario you put forth have any sort of logic to it?

If you accept the premise that Hillary lied, can you explain the why and how beyond that premise to present a scenario that makes sense?


From what I've ascertained, they were lying to protect Obama from... something. They honestly believe that the truth about Benghazi... whatever they think it is/was, would've been important enough in voters' eyes to not vote for Obama and/or vote for Romney.

The problem is, as tragic as the deaths of Amb. Stevens and the three other Americans was, in the grand scheme of things, this was approximately 2,136th in the list of "things voters cared about". It was far trumped by Obama acting like a leader during/after Sandy. So, they were screwed no matter what.

Unless it turned out Obama killed those 4 people himself, which I'm sure some people "think".
 
2013-02-01 11:09:21 AM

tnpir: Dear Christ, this thread went to troll-hell in a handbasket fast.


This is the Fark Politics tab. It's just how we (t)roll.
 
2013-02-01 11:10:19 AM

SkinnyHead: max_pooper: SkinnyHead: Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton that was pounding on the table a few days ago, yelling that the truth about Benghazi doesn't matter?  Doesn't sound like she's too interested in facts.

I believe she was yelling about how the GOP mouthbreathers clung to a small unimportant detail and tried scale it up to a massive scandal. Hilldog put them in their place.

Here's what Hillary said:  "We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The reason behind the attack sounds like an important detail to me, don't you think?


That's not the small unimportant detail. The reason behind the attacks is known and has been for quite some time. We have known who was responsible for attacks and their professed motivation prior to the GOP dog and pony show they invited Hillary to. The small unimportant detail the GOP is trying to scale up into a scandal is the exact moment when the cause of the attacks became 100% apparent to the administration and exactly when that information was made public.
 
2013-02-01 11:10:21 AM

Delawheredad: Did she ever find out who was behind the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" that caused her husband to "not have sex" with Monica Lewinsky.

 I don't care about Bengazi but Hillary is the LAST person in the world who should make this accusation.


skinnyhead take note - THIS Is what i'm talking about.  this is looking back through the record and finding legitimate reasons for not trusting anything Hillary Clinton says...taking what happened in the past, what's on record, and then contrasting it with current events.  that's using your brain and NOT spewing whatever talking point happens to be on the list for the day.
 
2013-02-01 11:10:53 AM

Delawheredad: Did she ever find out who was behind the "Vast right-wing conspiracy" that caused her husband to "not have sex" with Monica Lewinsky.

 I don't care about Bengazi but Hillary is the LAST person in the world who should make this accusation.


<img src="dashie.mylittlefacewhen.com ">
 
2013-02-01 11:11:33 AM
Too many of you have bit onto SJ's and SH's reels....

It's Friday, everyone's bored.
 
2013-02-01 11:12:38 AM

Weaver95: skinnyhead take note - THIS Is what i'm talking about.  this is looking back through the record and finding legitimate reasons for not trusting anything Hillary Clinton says...taking what happened in the past, what's on record, and then contrasting it with current events.  that's using your brain and NOT spewing whatever talking point happens to be on the list for the day.


By Grabthar's Hammer, please stop responding to him and similar posters who clearly have no intention to discuss this issue with any honesty.
 
2013-02-01 11:14:46 AM

Bloody William: Is it me, or is the "lying" the administration did with Benghazi pretty much identical to the "lying" any police chief will make regarding a murder that's still being investigated or a hostage situation that's still being resolved?


Not just you. I've asked repeatedly if Police Chief Charles Moose lied to the American public when he said the DC sniper was using a large white van/delivery truck. Same thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report