The problem is that you showed no connection to brilliant people being in charge and living better. You did bring up the subject of brilliant people working for companies making life better, but no where did you show the connection to government unless it is where minimum wage hasn't even kept pace with inflation since 1980.
I know you are wanting to make a case here, but you have not done so so far.
For instance, a person making a wage of 20k in 1980 now makes 60-70k
So they have barely kept pace with and surpassed inflation slightly. (20k in 1980 has the same buying power as $56,675.73 in 2013 according to the US government inflation calculator). I would hope that after 30 years, their salary would have increased a bit more then that.
As a middle class person, you cannot convince me I do not live better now. I've also been poor.
I'm not even sure why you are bringing this up. The comment about imbecile and brillient was completely about spying and skirting around the US constitution. Not whether or not you live better today or not.
Minimum wage in 1980 was about $3 ($6240/ year), now $7.25 (15080/y)
And I see the the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. $6240 in 1980 is equal to $17,682.83 in 2013. Your estimate is off a couple grand if you were to say you live the same on minimum wage.
However, when I visit my jobless friend's trailer and enjoy his cheap but passable big screen TV and his 'blu-discs' and his equally high-speed data connection, I have to think "Damn, he lives way better than I did back when I experienced poverty in the 1980s"
Well, that is a function of technological improvements not brilliant or imbecilic people in government. My first color TV cost me $450 for a 19 inch screen, what will that same $450 purchase today, At best buy, I can get a 50 inch flat screen for that much. For a little more, I can buy it from rent-a-center for a small weekly or monthly payment and own it after 2 years. I can also buy it before I lose my job and can't find another.
Yes, but did you know we can take it back even further? I believe it was the second session of the first congress that gave us warrantless border searches for vessels entering and exiting the national ports. But that might be stretching it a bit.
Under the Constitution, the feds can tax you, or not tax you, pretty much any way they like. Paying a tax if you don't have health insurance is no more a violation of the Constitution than paying a tax if you don't have a mortgage. The ACA's mandate is bad policy, but is entirely Constitutional.
If the tax followed the constitutional requirements for being created, I would agree with you. However, the so called tax was being called a penalty by all invested in seeing it pass supreme court muster because they know that the tax originated in the senate and the US constitution says it must originate in the house of representatives. There are limits to how the feds can tax you- or more precisely, limits to how the taxes are implemented.
My understanding is that there is a lawsuit going forward on this attempting to make it hit as soon as the tax penalty is in force (standing). There has been talk about how the suspension of the penalty for businesses and organizations was to remove standing from the group suing but they modified their complaint to represent the people of the organization itself now.
What I don't understand is why if you encrypt with one key, you will need another to decrypt. It seems to me that the encryption key plus the message should be enough to force the decryption. Especially if you know a portion of the contents. I mean B's public key would have to know something about B's private key and/or vice versa in order to allow a third party to encrypt something that only B's private key could do.
the problem with brilliant people is that they always think they know more or best. It is brilliant people who find loopholes in laws that allow people to get around what otherwise would be restricted or illegal. It is brilliant people who find technicalities to get around policies, it is brilliant people who find ways to do what we are not allowed to do.
What we need to do is fire all the brilliant people and hire imbeciles. Keep a few smart ones out there to make sure the imbeciles don't kill themselves on a paper cut, but with the imbeciles, we will know right off the bat when they are doing something wrong or illegal or unconstitutional.
I've ran into this problem quite a bit. I use one or two mail servers at each site for receiving email but have several more for sending on the same domain. This coincides with department connections and the need to restrict access to certain emails addresses and filtering of content. The problem occurs for me when someone brings a device in from home that is infected. We segregate the networks but both the SMTP and the network share the same IP going to the public interface so the IP gets hosed even though there is a SPF record.
Spamhous aggregates spam lists also so depending on where your ip is originally blocked, you might end up with a lot more hassle getting it unblocked. AOL seems to want to block IPs and domains because it can. They always have some stupid reason, including where one customer signed up for updates to their legal case using their AOL email address and then marked it as spam because it went to another folder that could keep track of.
The US government stopped worrying about the Constitution a long time ago. Just recently, they decided they had the power to mandate that every single US citizen purchase a specific product or be fined (Obamacare). But more to illustrate this, look at how the administrative branch of the government is refusing to follow laws congress implemented and how they think they can just write a new law without congress at all.
And before anyone jumps in here to defend Obama as if their world would fall apart if his name was ever tarnished, this has happened by both parties in the past starting with the civil war and become widely done since the new deal where Roosevelt ended up having a stand off with the supreme court. Obama is used only because he is the most recent president to be doing it.
Only if you restore it on the server side. I suspect what he meant was using a VM on the client accessing the server to ensure there are no bugs or trojans set to intercept or log the communications.
In the US, no matter what philosophical ideology you wish to follow, congress is charged with creating courts under the supreme court and they can essentially call anything they want a court and it will be a court. Unfortunately, they can call a kid riding his bicycle down the road a court if they feel like it and it will be a court.
First, none of the video protests resulted in a loss of life or military grade weapons and bombs being used. Second, we know that the US government and the Libyan government knew this was not about a protest from the start. You can act all ignorant of that fact all you want but it only shows that you are willing to ignore known facts to maintain some ideology. That is sad in and of itself but very sad when that involves the death of Americans who were serving our country.
Nobody disputes in hindsight that security and activities where poorly planned that day, so I will ignore statements that re-illustrate that fact.
So it's an "oopp's my bad, lets move on" when people are dead? We need to know why security was bad, why we dropped the ball, why we couldn't recover the ball, and why the other team was able to take the ball and score in order to make sure it doesn't happen again. I know you are all defensive because you think someone close to your political thinking will get the raw end of the stick here. They should- but it could be anyone, because their hap hazzard ways caused people to get killed. If this was a plane crash and we discovered it happened due to some CEO deciding to save money by skipping maintenance of the planes, he would be in jail and at the very least, never heading up a transportation company again. That is only proper no matter what political ideology they are and in this case, it is proper just the same- even if there is no jail time.
My sources can beat up your sources.
Your sources leave you looking ignorant and partisan because they ignore known facts and twist things to maintain an ideology. Even if they could beat up my sources, you are still looking like a complete idiot for siding only with them.
Find some REAL scandals for once. Fake or exaggerated scandals get tiresome; repeatedly calling Wolf will only get you eaten.
Umm.. No matter how much you want to close your eyes and think this isn't happening, it is real. The only scandal here is all the stone walling and attempts to deflect from the truth. In other words, the scandal isn't Benghazi itself, it is the cover ups involved to stop people from looking less then good. If the administration and state department would have been fully cooperative, it would be over by now. I suspect it is people trying to maintain political viability for future races but we will never know what really happened or why it happened or that steps are in place so it never happens again until it is completely investigated.
This is a real scandal as long as the administration and offices under it attempts to block oversight by government departments able to perform oversight. the only thing facked or exaggerated so far seems to be your attempts at washing it under the rug.
Which is more, 10 at 10,000 or 10,000 at 100? Nothing is always consistently the extremes of either end. Lets put our thinking hats on and treat this like the real world where markets share or sales does translate into profits because business management is comprised of people who are not morons. Debates about business should not be either. Tell your ivy league professor that the rest of the world said shut up.
It's the freaking US Government here. It is not what is being done, it is what can be done. They have already used offices under the government to go after people for political speech (IRS is recent), they can do anything they want and as long as they target individual threats, there is nothing you can do about it yourself.
Even if nothing nefarious is being done with the collection of this information, the problem is that you cannot tell me nothing nefarious will ever be done with it. The 4th amendment to the constitution is there because of that exactly. Yes, that's right, the 4th amendment to the US constitution specifically attempted to refrain government from collecting information on people who have done no wrong or is not suspected of doing any wrong. It solved a problem where British agents would barge in and collect information then later use it against you when some law was changed or some edict was issued by the king or even a governor.
Now suppose you oppose the king of the US for any reason in the future, what will be done with this information? Will it be known that someone used your phone to call a poison control line when it appeared their kid ingested antifreeze? Will that be used to take your children away for bad parenting when you attempt to get a law changed or protest the passing of a law? Suppose that someone called a suicide hot line from your phone, are they going to claim you are violent and homicidal when your significant other runs her car off the road trying to avoid hitting a deer and is almost killed? Suppose your neighbor committed suicide and all those queries popped up in your computer history and phone records, are you now going to be blamed for murdering him and making it look like a suicide? Even if it was him using your phone and computer to research ways to kill himself?
Tell me, what can't the government do with this information? the information is without context until someone who wants to pin something on you decided to put context around it. In the end, you end up looking like the thief caught red handed and trying to talk his way out of it, except you may have done nothing wrong or illegal at all.
How about a law that says any information gathered from the NSA data dumps can only be used on terrorist and national security law enforcement and any disclosure of information for any other purpose will be a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment unless it can be proven that other law enforcement agencies colluded to gain access to the information then 10 years imprisonment for all involved.
You aren't supposed to need an adversary, the court itself is supposed to be one. This isn't like someone accusing you of something and it going on your record. It is supposed to be an agent saying we have this clear and articulate evidence that suggest we need the ability to spy on X because they are involved in, about to be involved in, or was involved in, the commission of a crime/terrorism/whatever national security interest are.
The judge isn't supposed to rubber stamp them, they are supposed to determine if probable cause was constitutionally met and then approve or deny accordingly. The problem with the FISC or Foreign Intelligence Secret Court is two fold. They are supposed to ensure Americans aren't targeted or that probable cause was constitutionally met if they are and they are targeted in concerns of national security.
In short, the courts are supposed to be stopping these things or ensuring they are constitutional before the point an adversary is ever needed. If they are not doing so, then there is a serious problem. A court simply saying "ok, here is your warrant" does not mean it is constitutional if they are not doing their jobs properly.
The US signing something does not bind us to it. Most countries are the same on this too. It takes ratification in order to bind countries to an international agreement. In the US, the senate must concur with the president and the agreement must not violate the US constitution. In other countries, their government bodies approve of it and it becomes ratified and binding.
You will find there are tons of international agreements out there that countries including but not limited to the USA have signed but are not legally bound to because they have failed to ratify them within their own government. The UN or international law does not trump the sovereignty of a nation unless they voluntarily allow it to.
This reminds me of when I found the neighbor boy was taking cheap drugs and his response was "Cheap, I paid a lot of money for them"
IT would seem that some people are so bamboozled by the hope of something in the way someone speaks that they completely miss the actions happening in front of them. Con artists use this trick to pick pockets and perform all sorts of other dishonest feats. I hope no one ever says politicians aren't crooks. They sure seem to act like them.
Geesh, all your rational reasoning is going to spoil the incentives to switch services and pay a lot of money to host with these companies. You are spoiling capitalism here..
What exactly was the argument? Seems to me you voice a few concerns and your friend didn't care enough about them to bother with them. Did you argue with him that he should care or something?
In hindsight, nobody disagrees with that statement; but it's not the issue I was addressing. By the way, where were the "safer areas"?
Where were the safer areas? On a freaking airplane or a boat elsewhere is safer. France, Germany, the Gold ol USA, A navy ship, or anywhere that there wasn't low security and known elements of Al Qeada and the government warning them something was going to happen would be fine. But if they couldn't leave the country, then Libyan government facilities, a farm house in the middle of nowhere, or even a more secure city in another part of the country- in a hotel room.
And it was closed down, but somebody didn't lock the gate properly.
If by closed down you mean they locked the doors and turned out the lights to go to bed, you would be right, but completely missing anything important. If you mean the consulate was closed down as in what we just did to respond to the same Al Qeada warnings, then you are telling a lie. Ambassador Stevens met with a Turkish diplomats that day there to discuss establishing a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. It was completely open and open for business which is why staff including Stevens was present and killed. The gate was locked properly, they were freakin attacked with RPGs, AK47's, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks. The gate simply couldn't withstand the assault on it.
Barack knows some very useful wisdom that I unfortunately neglected: "Do not feed the trolls".
You seriously have some misconstrued idea about known facts pertaining to the night in question. I like how the facts cause you to retreat calling someone a troll. I suggest you stop getting your news and information from apologist sites and pay attention to other primary as well as secondary sources. But I suppose you won't do that and you will find everything to be all right as long as your fearless idiot (oops, I mean leader) remains untarnished. You are a very sad person.
You really need to stop trolling me. I made a comment directly to a specific comment and you coming in half baked and trying to insult someone over it just another extension of your pathetic existence. You might want to think about killing yourself and putting your misery to rest once and for all.
i hate to tell you this but the issues with poverty you are mentioning started back with Carter when his administration deregulated real estate holdings by the banks.
Security. You claimed there was zero security. He was with a group that had 3 armed guards if I remember correctly; sufficient for personal protection, but not an ambush.
Wow.. Your mind really is that screwed up? I mean an airplane that has 2 parachutes is prepared, but are they still prepared when there is ten passengers? Stop being pedantic, the point was more then easy enough to understand and your objection to it is meaningless. Too many signs showed that more then 3 body guards were needed. Something as simple as closing the building down and moving the people to safer areas would likely have save 4 lives.
As far as birth certificates, the courts generally hold that it's up to a given State to certify births in that State. If you want to complain about O's bc, complain to Hawaii, not O.
This is a sure sign that your thinking is defective. Verifying a birth certificate was never the point of what I wrote. The point is that Obama had ample opportunity and plenty of time to get rid of all accusations and dispel any concerns yet he purposely and thoughtfully manipulated the situation to prolong it and not only allow it to gain traction, but used that traction as a basis for politicking later down the road. All along, he possessed the power to quell the unrest, and yet he seemed to need it to rally his base support. Benghazi could very well be something like that where there is no cover up but he is making it appear like there is just so he can politic down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you showed no connection to brilliant people being in charge and living better. You did bring up the subject of brilliant people working for companies making life better, but no where did you show the connection to government unless it is where minimum wage hasn't even kept pace with inflation since 1980.
I know you are wanting to make a case here, but you have not done so so far.
So they have barely kept pace with and surpassed inflation slightly. (20k in 1980 has the same buying power as $56,675.73 in 2013 according to the US government inflation calculator). I would hope that after 30 years, their salary would have increased a bit more then that.
I'm not even sure why you are bringing this up. The comment about imbecile and brillient was completely about spying and skirting around the US constitution. Not whether or not you live better today or not.
And I see the the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. $6240 in 1980 is equal to $17,682.83 in 2013. Your estimate is off a couple grand if you were to say you live the same on minimum wage.
Well, that is a function of technological improvements not brilliant or imbecilic people in government. My first color TV cost me $450 for a 19 inch screen, what will that same $450 purchase today, At best buy, I can get a 50 inch flat screen for that much. For a little more, I can buy it from rent-a-center for a small weekly or monthly payment and own it after 2 years. I can also buy it before I lose my job and can't find another.
BTW, the inflation calc is located at
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=6240&year1=1980&year2=2013
I hope you understand that this might be one of those occasions you were talking about.
Yes, but did you know we can take it back even further? I believe it was the second session of the first congress that gave us warrantless border searches for vessels entering and exiting the national ports. But that might be stretching it a bit.
If the tax followed the constitutional requirements for being created, I would agree with you. However, the so called tax was being called a penalty by all invested in seeing it pass supreme court muster because they know that the tax originated in the senate and the US constitution says it must originate in the house of representatives. There are limits to how the feds can tax you- or more precisely, limits to how the taxes are implemented.
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypresscreek/blogs/the-supreme-court-may-yet-rule-obamacare-unconstitutional/article_9f10425c-a9dd-11e2-879c-0019bb2963f4.html
My understanding is that there is a lawsuit going forward on this attempting to make it hit as soon as the tax penalty is in force (standing). There has been talk about how the suspension of the penalty for businesses and organizations was to remove standing from the group suing but they modified their complaint to represent the people of the organization itself now.
What I don't understand is why if you encrypt with one key, you will need another to decrypt. It seems to me that the encryption key plus the message should be enough to force the decryption. Especially if you know a portion of the contents. I mean B's public key would have to know something about B's private key and/or vice versa in order to allow a third party to encrypt something that only B's private key could do.
the problem with brilliant people is that they always think they know more or best. It is brilliant people who find loopholes in laws that allow people to get around what otherwise would be restricted or illegal. It is brilliant people who find technicalities to get around policies, it is brilliant people who find ways to do what we are not allowed to do.
What we need to do is fire all the brilliant people and hire imbeciles. Keep a few smart ones out there to make sure the imbeciles don't kill themselves on a paper cut, but with the imbeciles, we will know right off the bat when they are doing something wrong or illegal or unconstitutional.
I've ran into this problem quite a bit. I use one or two mail servers at each site for receiving email but have several more for sending on the same domain. This coincides with department connections and the need to restrict access to certain emails addresses and filtering of content. The problem occurs for me when someone brings a device in from home that is infected. We segregate the networks but both the SMTP and the network share the same IP going to the public interface so the IP gets hosed even though there is a SPF record.
Spamhous aggregates spam lists also so depending on where your ip is originally blocked, you might end up with a lot more hassle getting it unblocked. AOL seems to want to block IPs and domains because it can. They always have some stupid reason, including where one customer signed up for updates to their legal case using their AOL email address and then marked it as spam because it went to another folder that could keep track of.
The US government stopped worrying about the Constitution a long time ago. Just recently, they decided they had the power to mandate that every single US citizen purchase a specific product or be fined (Obamacare). But more to illustrate this, look at how the administrative branch of the government is refusing to follow laws congress implemented and how they think they can just write a new law without congress at all.
And before anyone jumps in here to defend Obama as if their world would fall apart if his name was ever tarnished, this has happened by both parties in the past starting with the civil war and become widely done since the new deal where Roosevelt ended up having a stand off with the supreme court. Obama is used only because he is the most recent president to be doing it.
Only if you restore it on the server side. I suspect what he meant was using a VM on the client accessing the server to ensure there are no bugs or trojans set to intercept or log the communications.
In the US, no matter what philosophical ideology you wish to follow, congress is charged with creating courts under the supreme court and they can essentially call anything they want a court and it will be a court. Unfortunately, they can call a kid riding his bicycle down the road a court if they feel like it and it will be a court.
First, none of the video protests resulted in a loss of life or military grade weapons and bombs being used. Second, we know that the US government and the Libyan government knew this was not about a protest from the start. You can act all ignorant of that fact all you want but it only shows that you are willing to ignore known facts to maintain some ideology. That is sad in and of itself but very sad when that involves the death of Americans who were serving our country.
So it's an "oopp's my bad, lets move on" when people are dead? We need to know why security was bad, why we dropped the ball, why we couldn't recover the ball, and why the other team was able to take the ball and score in order to make sure it doesn't happen again. I know you are all defensive because you think someone close to your political thinking will get the raw end of the stick here. They should- but it could be anyone, because their hap hazzard ways caused people to get killed. If this was a plane crash and we discovered it happened due to some CEO deciding to save money by skipping maintenance of the planes, he would be in jail and at the very least, never heading up a transportation company again. That is only proper no matter what political ideology they are and in this case, it is proper just the same- even if there is no jail time.
Your sources leave you looking ignorant and partisan because they ignore known facts and twist things to maintain an ideology. Even if they could beat up my sources, you are still looking like a complete idiot for siding only with them.
Umm.. No matter how much you want to close your eyes and think this isn't happening, it is real. The only scandal here is all the stone walling and attempts to deflect from the truth. In other words, the scandal isn't Benghazi itself, it is the cover ups involved to stop people from looking less then good. If the administration and state department would have been fully cooperative, it would be over by now. I suspect it is people trying to maintain political viability for future races but we will never know what really happened or why it happened or that steps are in place so it never happens again until it is completely investigated.
This is a real scandal as long as the administration and offices under it attempts to block oversight by government departments able to perform oversight. the only thing facked or exaggerated so far seems to be your attempts at washing it under the rug.
Which is more, 10 at 10,000 or 10,000 at 100? Nothing is always consistently the extremes of either end. Lets put our thinking hats on and treat this like the real world where markets share or sales does translate into profits because business management is comprised of people who are not morons. Debates about business should not be either. Tell your ivy league professor that the rest of the world said shut up.
It's the freaking US Government here. It is not what is being done, it is what can be done. They have already used offices under the government to go after people for political speech (IRS is recent), they can do anything they want and as long as they target individual threats, there is nothing you can do about it yourself.
Even if nothing nefarious is being done with the collection of this information, the problem is that you cannot tell me nothing nefarious will ever be done with it. The 4th amendment to the constitution is there because of that exactly. Yes, that's right, the 4th amendment to the US constitution specifically attempted to refrain government from collecting information on people who have done no wrong or is not suspected of doing any wrong. It solved a problem where British agents would barge in and collect information then later use it against you when some law was changed or some edict was issued by the king or even a governor.
Now suppose you oppose the king of the US for any reason in the future, what will be done with this information? Will it be known that someone used your phone to call a poison control line when it appeared their kid ingested antifreeze? Will that be used to take your children away for bad parenting when you attempt to get a law changed or protest the passing of a law? Suppose that someone called a suicide hot line from your phone, are they going to claim you are violent and homicidal when your significant other runs her car off the road trying to avoid hitting a deer and is almost killed? Suppose your neighbor committed suicide and all those queries popped up in your computer history and phone records, are you now going to be blamed for murdering him and making it look like a suicide? Even if it was him using your phone and computer to research ways to kill himself?
Tell me, what can't the government do with this information? the information is without context until someone who wants to pin something on you decided to put context around it. In the end, you end up looking like the thief caught red handed and trying to talk his way out of it, except you may have done nothing wrong or illegal at all.
Go with cynical instead. It's easier to get a chuckle and doesn't mind if it turns out to be serious.
That's interesting.
How about a law that says any information gathered from the NSA data dumps can only be used on terrorist and national security law enforcement and any disclosure of information for any other purpose will be a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment unless it can be proven that other law enforcement agencies colluded to gain access to the information then 10 years imprisonment for all involved.
You aren't supposed to need an adversary, the court itself is supposed to be one. This isn't like someone accusing you of something and it going on your record. It is supposed to be an agent saying we have this clear and articulate evidence that suggest we need the ability to spy on X because they are involved in, about to be involved in, or was involved in, the commission of a crime/terrorism/whatever national security interest are.
The judge isn't supposed to rubber stamp them, they are supposed to determine if probable cause was constitutionally met and then approve or deny accordingly. The problem with the FISC or Foreign Intelligence Secret Court is two fold. They are supposed to ensure Americans aren't targeted or that probable cause was constitutionally met if they are and they are targeted in concerns of national security.
In short, the courts are supposed to be stopping these things or ensuring they are constitutional before the point an adversary is ever needed. If they are not doing so, then there is a serious problem. A court simply saying "ok, here is your warrant" does not mean it is constitutional if they are not doing their jobs properly.
The US signing something does not bind us to it. Most countries are the same on this too. It takes ratification in order to bind countries to an international agreement. In the US, the senate must concur with the president and the agreement must not violate the US constitution. In other countries, their government bodies approve of it and it becomes ratified and binding.
You will find there are tons of international agreements out there that countries including but not limited to the USA have signed but are not legally bound to because they have failed to ratify them within their own government. The UN or international law does not trump the sovereignty of a nation unless they voluntarily allow it to.
This reminds me of when I found the neighbor boy was taking cheap drugs and his response was "Cheap, I paid a lot of money for them"
IT would seem that some people are so bamboozled by the hope of something in the way someone speaks that they completely miss the actions happening in front of them. Con artists use this trick to pick pockets and perform all sorts of other dishonest feats. I hope no one ever says politicians aren't crooks. They sure seem to act like them.
Geesh, all your rational reasoning is going to spoil the incentives to switch services and pay a lot of money to host with these companies. You are spoiling capitalism here..
What exactly was the argument? Seems to me you voice a few concerns and your friend didn't care enough about them to bother with them. Did you argue with him that he should care or something?
Where were the safer areas? On a freaking airplane or a boat elsewhere is safer. France, Germany, the Gold ol USA, A navy ship, or anywhere that there wasn't low security and known elements of Al Qeada and the government warning them something was going to happen would be fine. But if they couldn't leave the country, then Libyan government facilities, a farm house in the middle of nowhere, or even a more secure city in another part of the country- in a hotel room.
If by closed down you mean they locked the doors and turned out the lights to go to bed, you would be right, but completely missing anything important. If you mean the consulate was closed down as in what we just did to respond to the same Al Qeada warnings, then you are telling a lie. Ambassador Stevens met with a Turkish diplomats that day there to discuss establishing a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. It was completely open and open for business which is why staff including Stevens was present and killed. The gate was locked properly, they were freakin attacked with RPGs, AK47's, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks. The gate simply couldn't withstand the assault on it.
You seriously have some misconstrued idea about known facts pertaining to the night in question. I like how the facts cause you to retreat calling someone a troll. I suggest you stop getting your news and information from apologist sites and pay attention to other primary as well as secondary sources. But I suppose you won't do that and you will find everything to be all right as long as your fearless idiot (oops, I mean leader) remains untarnished. You are a very sad person.
You really need to stop trolling me. I made a comment directly to a specific comment and you coming in half baked and trying to insult someone over it just another extension of your pathetic existence. You might want to think about killing yourself and putting your misery to rest once and for all.
The IRS has already determined that bartering is income and taxable as income in most situations. Why are you surprised if it is the same here?
i hate to tell you this but the issues with poverty you are mentioning started back with Carter when his administration deregulated real estate holdings by the banks.
Once again, you show your reading comprehension and affinity to troll got the best of you.
Reread what I responded to then after you take your foot out of your mouth, come back and appologize for being an idiot.
Wow.. Your mind really is that screwed up? I mean an airplane that has 2 parachutes is prepared, but are they still prepared when there is ten passengers? Stop being pedantic, the point was more then easy enough to understand and your objection to it is meaningless. Too many signs showed that more then 3 body guards were needed. Something as simple as closing the building down and moving the people to safer areas would likely have save 4 lives.
This is a sure sign that your thinking is defective. Verifying a birth certificate was never the point of what I wrote. The point is that Obama had ample opportunity and plenty of time to get rid of all accusations and dispel any concerns yet he purposely and thoughtfully manipulated the situation to prolong it and not only allow it to gain traction, but used that traction as a basis for politicking later down the road. All along, he possessed the power to quell the unrest, and yet he seemed to need it to rally his base support. Benghazi could very well be something like that where there is no cover up but he is making it appear like there is just so he can politic down the road.