Yes take your ball and go home you piece of shit.
I'll just leave this little quote from you showing just how non partisan you are:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34998256&postcount=38
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Wow, that was quite a temper tantrum you've had there.....
SO, according to you, I'm a partisan hack, a hypocrite, and stupid for having an opinion that differs from the Kool Aid version you keep pitching to me. Now I'm questioning Patriotism, accused by the person who questions mine. I don't know Incorruptible but you can try to divert attention that way as well.
If I read the report do you really think it's going to sway my stance? Has anyone been personally held responsible....no. I've said this many times. I may just read the report just to confirm what I already know.
No, after some very lengthy consideration....you go ahead and fuck off. Sorry I don't want to follow your logic and behavior which in fact points to you having all of the characteristics you just accused me of.
Yes take your ball and go home you piece of shit.
I'll just leave this little quote from you showing just how non partisan you are:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34998256&postcount=38
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Am I not allowed some humor in my humble life? You end with even more of a tantrum....you're a real winner, you got me!
In the end I'm still holding the ball; you've dropped it by being duped.
duped - definition of duped by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/duped‎
A person who functions as the tool of another person or power. tr.v. duped, dup·ing, dupes. To deceive (an unwary person). See Synonyms at deceive.
Lol, how convientl.
Four points. First, if we gave every department everything it says it absolutely must have, there would be no private sector, other than banks to loan the government more wealth than the nation creates. Second, if one has less money than one wants, one must prioritize wisely. Eliminating all security in one of the most dangerous areas of the world is not prioritizing wisely. (You may argue that we did not know this was one of the most dangerous areas of the world, but then you would need to explain why we did not know this when Great Britain certainly did.) Third, the payroll on foreign security contractors amounts to an influence buying scheme; with a couple notable exceptions, local security runs away as soon as a concerted attack occurs, assuming they don't join in. If we could not get marines, a handful of ex-military American contractors would be very much preferable to a score of Libyans who, as we've seen, will not stay to defend you.Now is that better or worse than denying a department the funding they say they need to exact effective security and then demanding to know why there seemed to be a lack of security?
Your response presupposes that the White House and the State Department are two unassociated entities. In reality the head of State is a political flunky appointed by and accountable to the President, and what the President wants from State, the President gets from State.Did you read that ABC article? It doesn't support the hysterical claims of the Obama haters. Most notably, it confirms that from the very beginning, the CIA stated the attack appeared, "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo". So no matter how much the nutters screech about "lying about a tape on the Internet," the simple fact is that's what the CIA said. It was not something Rice or Obama invented.
It also reveals the State Department's rationale for their extensive changes. First, they felt that naming specific terrorist groups would prejudice the investigation. The email said something to the effect that they weren't allowed to make those claims internally, so it would not be appropriate to make them publicly. That seems potentially reasonable.
Their other objection was much more self-serving. They felt the CIA was trying to throw DoS under the bus by saying they ignored the CIA's warnings. Not surprisingly, State didn't want that criticism, and wanted those statements removed. Saving face is not a legitimate reason for suppressing information.
What is absent from any of this is the White House making changes, or any comments whatsoever that any of the parties involved in changes were thinking about the election. That doesn't surprise me. If I were in that position, I'd never put that in writing either. The point, however, is that this shocking!!!!! ABC news story does NOT support the accusations of the Obama bashers. If one actually reads the ABC report -- the whole thing, not just cherry-picked pieces -- one sees yet again that the partisan screeching doesn't match the facts presented.
/sighYour response presupposes that the White House and the State Department are two unassociated entities. In reality the head of State is a political flunky appointed by and accountable to the President, and what the President wants from State, the President gets from State.
/sigh
More than that, I expressly allowed that the White House might have been directly involved but was smart enough to avoid a written trail. That's not the point. The point is this ABC story that had some of the boys soiling themselves in glee does not prove what they think it proves. Indeed, it explicitly contradicts one of their key allegations, that the "Internet tape" talking point came from the White House. It also documents a plausible alternative explanation of the revisions, contradicting their claims this was all about the election. In short, for those who can read for themselves, the ABC story is simply not the smoking gun the Obama haters crave.
Of course not we have had a few smoking guns already that turned out to be water pistols. That won't stop them from bringing up new water pistols every 30-60 days though.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
Those "bastards" cut it back to above 2008 levels.
I find it hard to believe the press getting upset about this nonsense when they looked and still look the other way when it comes to 3000 Americans killed on American soil, 4000+ troupes killed on foreign soil, and countless innocent killed, all because cowboy GW wanted to play president.
So, sorry. Not buying your product republican wing nuts. No sale.
You moron. 4 Americans are dead and you don't care to find out what happened?
Pathetic.
You moron. 4 Americans are dead and you don't care to find out what happened?
Pathetic.
At the hands of terrorists? If those four deaths in that minute were murders, don't you think they should be investigated to the fullest extent possible? And, if they were the result of negligence, shouldn't those responsible for said negligence be held accountable?In the time it took you to spell check and type that small post, I am sure more than 4 Americans died, why don't you care about them as well?
And it is being investigated. It's the Issa three-ring witch hunt and propaganda mill that is diverting America's focus.At the hands of terrorists? If those four deaths in that minute were murders, don't you think they should be investigated to the fullest extent possible? And, if they were the result of negligence, shouldn't those responsible for said negligence be held accountable?
At minimum, shouldn't those murderers be found and brought to justice?
You do realize that the Benghazi attack resulted in the the first murder of a US Ambassador in over three decades, right?
Those of you who are downplaying or outright dismissing this attack make me f'n sick...
In the time it took you to spell check and type that small post, I am sure more than 4 Americans died, why don't you care about them as well?
/sigh
More than that, I expressly allowed that the White House might have been directly involved but was smart enough to avoid a written trail. That's not the point. The point is this ABC story that had some of the boys soiling themselves in glee does not prove what they think it proves. Indeed, it explicitly contradicts one of their key allegations, that the "Internet tape" talking point came from the White House. It also documents a plausible alternative explanation of the revisions, contradicting their claims this was all about the election. In short, for those who can read for themselves, the ABC story is simply not the smoking gun the Obama haters crave.
Not sure if you watched the news but there is some stuff in Libya that happened since 2008 you might want to catch up on before replying in this thread.
You're doing it again. "It also documents a plausible alternative explanation of the revisions" Is that the nice way of saying the White House and the State Department lied to us? ...
I think I see part of your problem now. Maybe this will help: RocketReaderIt started in 2008? Maybe you need to watch the news.
It started in 2008? Maybe you need to watch the news.
Learn to read you bloviating buffoon.Thanks buddy. All this time I thought they were lies, now with your help I know they are called "plausible alternative explanation"
Learn to read you bloviating buffoon.