Mitt Romney oursources his campaign hat order to China

[Conga3]

Ah, so you think I was intentionally trolling my own board, intentionally trying to generate negative responses?

 

Like I said - let's let the other Mods/Admins decide.

Well you admitted to creating this thread for the express reason of getting us to demand sources...

 

 

This thread is the reason I posted the hat thread. I said as much several times in the hat thread. Follow along.

 

so you could point out hypocracy in the Bengghazi thread....

 

As desperate as the tinfoil hat theories about Benghazi?

 

With never an honest intention to discuss the topic of the thread...

 

I'm explaining the exact purpose of the thread. You may not like it, but that's on you.

 

 

Do you really, really think I care one whit about hats?

 

....so yeah. I do.

[knapplc]

Opening eyes is not "generating negative responses." If you choose to respond negatively, that's your choice. Nothing I posted here was inflammatory in any way.

 

Don't lecture me about the rules. I enforce the rules every day here.

[knapplc]

Knapp- I understand the purpose of this thread (and probably some of the others you recently started). Personally though, I think it is an underhanded way of trying to get your larger point across. If you don't like the validity of some of the things being posted about the Benghazi deal, then why not simply refute specifically those things in those threads? Most of us are adult enough to be able to see who makes the better point or sources their information better and then to make up our own minds on what is more credible. If you think some posters are not sufficiently supporting their claims, I don't think the response should be to lower yourself to that level and post things you know are questionable. We may have some disagreements on politics but I still have always respected your opinion and the way you go about making your point. Please don't ruin that because you feel some other people aren't operating at the same level of honesty.

 

If you have a problem with anything I have posted about Benghazi, then please call me out on it specifically. I have a tendency to post more about my feelings, beliefs, and opinions and often times I will forego searching for or linking sufficient proof. I do not feel I necessarily need to provide impeccable proof for my opinion, only the basis for why it is my opinion. I will not purposely state something as fact unless I can prove it. Does that make sense? I also try to avoid jumping in and helping people who are making weak arguments even if they happen to be on the same side of the political fence as me. If we aren't going to be honest and truthful in our posts, then this whole deal is just a big waste of time and effort.

 

I have. Numerous times. Not only with you, but with anyone espousing this Benghazi conspiracy stuff. It's a circular conversation with no end, and then more threads crop up. They're like weeds.

 

Of note, the only weed objected to, so far, has been a thread about hats, critical of Mitt Romney. In fact, it's the only thread in this forum with a report on it. And those complaining are noted conservative members of this forum.

 

Go figure, huh?

[Conga3]

Opening eyes is not "generating negative responses." If you choose to respond negatively, that's your choice. Nothing I posted here was inflammatory in any way.

 

Don't lecture me about the rules. I enforce the rules every day here.

I'd like to be clear. I don't believe you broke HB rules... cause you would know better than I how HB enforces trolling as it pertains to HB rules.

 

I think you created this thread to _____ Romney supporters into reacting to your thread and demanding sources so you could bring up the Benghazi thread, and "open their eyes".

 

Fill in the blank with whatever. For me, the best word is "troll".

[knapplc]

If it's not inflammatory, if it's not intended to cause trouble, it's not trolling. You can manipulate it however you like. It's not ever going to rise to the level of trolling.

[JJ Husker]

 

I have. Numerous times. Not only with you, but with anyone espousing this Benghazi conspiracy stuff. It's a circular conversation with no end, and then more threads crop up. They're like weeds.

 

Of note, the only weed objected to, so far, has been a thread about hats, critical of Mitt Romney. In fact, it's the only thread in this forum with a report on it. And those complaining are noted conservative members of this forum.

 

Go figure, huh?

 

I can't answer for what other people do. All I can offer is that I have never used the report function (except possibly for Landomatic-I can't recall) and I don't foresee a need to ever use it unless a personal attack gets way out of control. I usually just consider the source of the post that may be bothering me and move on. So, please don't lump me in with others who may share the same political lean as me. I'm not them and they're not me.

 

The problem with the Benghazi deal is that no one knows for sure yet what all took place. I don't think it is unreasonable to posit theories or to post our opinions on the matter. Sure, some may disagree with conclusions I have arrived at but that doesn't make the post total derp. I believe that the situation was mishandled by the administration, ranging anywhere from mild incompetence all the way up to full blown coverup. I think that is a sensible position to have on it considering all the information that is out there. I feel keeping these types of issues at the forefront is what helps bring about full disclosure. I won't apologize for being on the other side of an idealogical or political fence however. That is something we all have to get used to in one way or another.

[knapplc]

If it makes you feel any better, JJ, I stood up to the "Loose Change" nutters accusing Bush of being behind the 9/11 attacks just like I'm standing up to those accusing Obama of complicity in the Benghazi attacks. The motivation for both sides is the same, and my motivation is the same. Truth is always better than political ideology.

[JJ Husker]

If it makes you feel any better, JJ, I stood up to the "Loose Change" nutters accusing Bush of being behind the 9/11 attacks just like I'm standing up to those accusing Obama of complicity in the Benghazi attacks. The motivation for both sides is the same, and my motivation is the same. Truth is always better than political ideology.

 

I appreciate the fact that you stood up for what you felt was right. I really don't care if it is in defense of Bush /repub/conservative or Obama/democrat/liberal. I lean fairly right of center but realize right and wrong does not fall along ideological or political lines. I have not made any claim that Obama is directly complicit in the Benghazi deal but I am leaving that option open. The few things I think I know about the situation are; additional security and protective measures were requested and apparently denied, an attack did take place with Americans being killed, the flow of information in the weeks following was somewhat inconsistent and the official administration position the first two weeks has been shown to not be accurate, and now we are learning a soldier went to their aid (apparently in violation of orders) and himself requested help that seems to have been available but was denied. Sorry, but along with being a very tragic event, the combination of all those factors, for me, adds up to being one giant clusterF. If somebody didn't screw up severely, I will be very very surprised. Was it Obama himself? I don't have the answer for that but, he is the President and until someone at a lower level is found out, the buck stops with him. Now, do I think it is possible nobody did anything wrong? I suppose it's possible I just don't think it is very likely. That's not derp or making false accusations, that is simply how I feel about it.

[knapplc]

Now, do I think it is possible nobody did anything wrong? I suppose it's possible I just don't think it is very likely.

 

You cannot ignore that it's also the least expedient answer for your particular political ideology. And that's what's troubling about the thrust of the conversation about the attack throughout the country. It's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about. Your view of this attack falls along party lines. And you feel this is entirely reasonable.

[tschu]

GUYS.

 

Stop falling for this silly stuff.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/debunked-heres-the-explanation-for-the-made-in-china-romney-hat-youre-seeing-on-facebook/

[knapplc]

That link doesn't show the hat in the picture's origin. It shows the hat, then says there are other hats for sale on the official Romney website.

 

Regardless, you're missing the point of the thread. It's not about hats.

[HSKR]

GUYS.

 

Stop falling for this silly stuff.

 

http://www.theblaze....ng-on-facebook/

 

Thanks for finding and posting that. We do indeed know now that Knapp was wrong. Case closed.

[tschu]

Anyone can photoshop anything these days. If we believed every picture that was posted on the internet, well...

[Ziggy]

Jimmy Carter last ran for president 33 years ago. 1992 was 20 years ago. Having worked for Fox News for the last several years as a pet "Democrat" kills any credibility Caddell has. He can register Democrat all he wants, but he's a DINO. No amount of wrangling changes that.

 

You think I change the story? You think I vilify? Do you even listen to Romney and his etch-a-sketch, 47% campaign? Take off the blinders, man.

 

 

 

EDIT - still waiting on any kind of link or credible source for any of the allegations in the first few posts in this thread. Lots of "I heard" without facts. It's shameful the way the Republicans have latched on to this tragedy for political gain.

 

For everyone who keeps talking about hats, Knapp doesn't care about hats. He started this thread to somehow prove that people should be providing links and sources for every argument. This all sprung up from the Libya part duex thread which I posted his first response asking for any sources or links. Notice the timestamps when he asked for sources on the Libya thread and when he started this thread.

[JJ Husker]

Now, do I think it is possible nobody did anything wrong? I suppose it's possible I just don't think it is very likely.

 

You cannot ignore that it's also the least expedient answer for your particular political ideology. And that's what's troubling about the thrust of the conversation about the attack throughout the country. It's the dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about. Your view of this attack falls along party lines. And you feel this is entirely reasonable.

 

Yes, there is compelling political expediency tied to this subject. However, I don't think that fact should nullify the merits of the conditions surrounding this issue. Sure we are rapidly approaching an election and understandably the people who are pushing the issue have some extra motivation too keep it at the forefront of discussion. But how is that any different than the other side who would like to ignore anything questionable took place and downplay the whole issue? It's not different. If you want to accuse me or others of playing political football with this issue, then the same can be said about your motivations for not wanting to hear about it. And so we arrive back where I've been trying to focus the discussion all along; something does not seem right with how this all went down. If it all seems perfectly normal and unsuspicious to you, well we'll just have to agree to disagree.