Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

Since the article in the OP was from the website, and not a talking head, then that must make it credible.

 

No, it's actually straightforward. Are you saying that these documents weren't declassified, and they don't say what the article claims they say?

 

Except for the fact that it IS a political story rather than non-political.

The problem with your "logic" is that just because you see a story which fits your views, you seem to believe each and every fact contained within that story.

 

That's not the issue. Where you lost yourself is when you quoted me, then responded with something which had absolutely nothing to do with my quote.

 

So since it's political, it's not credible? I posted the article; you said it's not credible. That puts the burden on you to discredit the article, and posting Fox "News" repeatedly is a rather infantile and low-brow effort to do so.

 

Your quote had nothing to do with the point of the thread? Amazing!

Welcome to S2! You'll fit in great here.

 

Wrong. I said Fox "News" is not credible. Perhaps you should refresh your comprehension by re-reading and trying to understand what was said rather than be in a hurry to quickly respond.

So what if I call it Fox "News" and you want to say it's infantile and low-brow. Truthfully, I care not what you think. It is sad you fancy yourself an expert in those areas.

By the way (again), weren't you going to ignore my comments?

 

Dude, that was a weak attempt at hyberbole. Try again.

 

Wrong

That's your first post in the thread. Maybe in your circles, that's considered a highly intellectual comment. Hard to tell, since you haven't once commented on the actual substance of the article. Or, is the entire factual news discredited because you didn't read it on the HuffPo?

 

ok, ok, now I know you are just trolling. Your choices of "credible" news outlets is laughable. Personaly, the only news I listen to on a daily basis is OPB/NPR. If I want to follow up on a story, I will read half a dozen different sites to get an over all feel, then make my own decision on the matter.

Of course you are still talking about what happened a decade ago, anything to avoid the current subject.

 

Funny, you're guilty there of what you accuse me of in the following:

Get off the HuffPo thing dude. Asked and answered.

Oh hey, what ever happened to that! I thought you were going to take your ball and go home. I guess you lied.

 

You haven't posted anything regarding the economy, politics, etc. You've posted about Fox "News" and the HuffPo (the Guardian too, I suppose), and their varying degrees of credibility.

Derp

 

Following up on a story is always a good idea. Reinforcing information and credibility is something we all should do.

I never said those two articles came from the most credible of news sources. Even in my previous comments, I've said that.

Is it an avoidance or a comparison. Certainly the latter. Please keep up.

 

Now I know you have no comprehension skills. Even more sad is it took you three promptings to respond! lol

 

That story essentially rehashes the Wall Street Journal! Where are they going to slant it?!

Seriously, this has gotten to the point of nitpicking. It's clear neither you nor PapaG have correctly comprehended my point. I'm not going to explain it twice.

 

I love it when coffins are used as props. Good times. Good times.

 

Dunderheads of America don't even care about this ruling, and what it means on net neutrality in terms of charging services via ISP. It won't make ABC/CBS/NBC until it actually starts impacting ISP bills.