Reagan vs Obama

[auditor0007]

eh..Statesmen vs the Dufus

Reagan Warned Us About Obama - YouTube

Let's just be honest about this; Reagan nearly doubled the size of government, and Obama to date has kept spending increases to a minimum. Based on those two facts, Reagan was the big spender and Obama has been the president pushing austerity. These are simple facts based on actual numbers. I realize that does not fit the conservative agenda, but it is something conservatives need to admit to, because lying about it serves no purpose.

 

[Dante]

At one point I felt sorry for these people. Now it looks like they just want to spread their grief all over America like shit through a fan.

And Obama is too stupid to pat them on the shoulder and tell them he wishes it might have been different before sending them on their way. The man is about as inspiring of a leader as Junebug was.

No decent person believes that kneejerk bogusness is the path to good law.

Do you feel that way about the grieving families of 9/11?

No. That Saudis attacked the US bothered me. That people in the financial services sector died wasn't any more of an issue to me than any war death list is. Any consideration I had for the families evaporated when the government made all of us pay them off.

One wonders how much Pearl Harbor families got. Or Manilla families. Or the families on Bataan were paid.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At one point I felt sorry for these people. Now it looks like they just want to spread their grief all over America like shit through a fan.

So you consider the grief of the bereaved parents of 20 innocent small children to be noting but "shit through a fan"?

And Obama is too stupid to pat them on the shoulder and tell them he wishes it might have been different before sending them on their way. The man is about as inspiring of a leader as Junebug was.

No decent person believes that kneejerk bogusness is the path to good law.

And you blame Obama for not telling them to keep their grief to themselves and not burden gun owners with the consequences of the mindless kneejerk obstruction of universal background checks?

A. Acknowledging a nominal leader's limits is not the same thing as "blame". Smart people don't blame dogs for being dogs (aka, for their limits).

Obama's "limits" are that he cannot overcome the blind kneejerk obstructionism of the extreme far right in congress? Thank you for clarifying your position.

B. It isn't a perfect world. Background checks can't change enough to pass a cost/benefit smell test.

The lives of 20 innocent children are worth less than the $25 it will cost to run a background check on a gun purchaser? Have you explained to the bereaved parents that you value the lives of their children at $1.25 each?

 

[Meathead]

eh..Statesmen vs the Dufus

Reagan Warned Us About Obama - YouTube

Let's just be honest about this; Reagan nearly doubled the size of government, and Obama to date has kept spending increases to a minimum. Based on those two facts, Reagan was the big spender and Obama has been the president pushing austerity. These are simple facts based on actual numbers. I realize that does not fit the conservative agenda, but it is something conservatives need to admit to, because lying about it serves no purpose.

Do you really want to be honest. Reagan was a dynamic leader, despite his age. He was able to bring consensus and fully carry out his agenda. He did so, both domestically and geo-politcally with minimal political or military damage. He changed both the US and the world, whether for better or worse.

Now, tell me what Obama's done.

 

[Derideo_Te]

eh..Statesmen vs the Dufus

Reagan Warned Us About Obama - YouTube

Let's just be honest about this; Reagan nearly doubled the size of government, and Obama to date has kept spending increases to a minimum. Based on those two facts, Reagan was the big spender and Obama has been the president pushing austerity. These are simple facts based on actual numbers. I realize that does not fit the conservative agenda, but it is something conservatives need to admit to, because lying about it serves no purpose.

Do you really want to be honest. Reagan was a dynamic leader, despite his age. He was able to bring consensus and fully carry out his agenda. He did so, both domestically and geo-politcally with minimal political or military damage. He changed both the US and the world, whether for better or worse.

Now, tell me what Obama's done.

Reagan supported gun control and signed legislation to that effect in CA. Obama is trying to the same thing but he is being obstructed by those who worship Reagan.

Reagan raised taxes and went wild on deficit spending. Obama has raised taxes and has done a sterling job on reducing deficit spending.

Reagan's anti-war agenda was to limit the use of nuclear weapons. Obama has ended the war in Iraq and will end the war in Afghanistan next year.

Reagan funded Al Queda and cut and ran from the Middle East when the 200+ marines were murdered in their barracks. Obama has taken out Bin Laden and 150 other terrorist leaders.

Obama also passed the Affordable Care Act which is a significant accomplishment.

 

[Meathead]

I realize that you just got here, but that's a puny excuse. We are not in the same league, as I said before. I am 57 years old with a post graduate degree attained in the 1980s. I lived and worked in DC shortly after graduation and today work in Prague in a field very closely related to the topic.In fact, I met Colonels McFarlane and North during my stint in DC. I did not approve of what they did, but of course, was in no position to tell them so.

Likewise, I have to be diplomatic at work, dealing with various people both American and foreign ranging from the erudite to the dingbat. I find this a bit of a release from the professional conduct to which I am compelled to adhere. I suppose I should be more tolerant of the vapid, especially those that think that they can lecture others about they knowl ittle about by disingenuously cherry-picking talking points form some dingbat website.

Again, my apologies for not doing so. Still, it's not a good idea to bend over in a place like this. Use caution in the future. Good luck.

Tell it to someone who actually gives a shit.

And I haven't "cherry picked" from a website. I posted nothing but facts. You just choose to ignore them because the facts don't fit your myopic world view. Too bad.

And the day you get the best of me is the day you claim Barack Obama is the best president EVAH.

You do realize this is tantamount to capitulation, eh?

 

[MondoBongo]

Now, tell me what Obama's done.

Congratulations. You just posted a bunch of stupid "rah, rah" platitudes and substance wasn't even involved in any way shape or form. I've seen birdbaths that are deeper than the crap you post.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

So you consider the grief of the bereaved parents of 20 innocent small children to be noting but "shit through a fan"?

And you blame Obama for not telling them to keep their grief to themselves and not burden gun owners with the consequences of the mindless kneejerk obstruction of universal background checks?

A. Acknowledging a nominal leader's limits is not the same thing as "blame". Smart people don't blame dogs for being dogs (aka, for their limits).

Obama's "limits" are that he cannot overcome the blind kneejerk obstructionism of the extreme far right in congress? Thank you for clarifying your position.

B. It isn't a perfect world. Background checks can't change enough to pass a cost/benefit smell test.

The lives of 20 innocent children are worth less than the $25 it will cost to run a background check on a gun purchaser? Have you explained to the bereaved parents that you value the lives of their children at $1.25 each?

Two of the problems exacerbated by public education in recent years made worse by fake-liberal propaganda are

1. lack of respect for other people's money, and
2. no understanding of scale
​

For every life saved there will be thousands of background checks. Costs are what they are. It is never easy giving the news, but reality is what it is.

As with so many things, the answer is to make people care. That takes a solid culture with a solid legal system and a solid educational system. The US has none of those; the culture is fragmenting, the legal system is for sale, and the educational system is flailing if not failing.

People like me realize throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. It's about the same thing as taking another drink. It feels good for a little bit, then pretty soon it's a habit, and the risk is it becomes a debilitating habit.

There were fewer mass murders when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values into a melting pot culture. When we get back to that a lot of the problems will go away. Until then I am prepared to accept collateral losses one of which could be me or one of my family. That is how it is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A. Acknowledging a nominal leader's limits is not the same thing as "blame". Smart people don't blame dogs for being dogs (aka, for their limits).

Obama's "limits" are that he cannot overcome the blind kneejerk obstructionism of the extreme far right in congress? Thank you for clarifying your position.

B. It isn't a perfect world. Background checks can't change enough to pass a cost/benefit smell test.

The lives of 20 innocent children are worth less than the $25 it will cost to run a background check on a gun purchaser? Have you explained to the bereaved parents that you value the lives of their children at $1.25 each?

Two of the problems exacerbated by public education in recent years made worse by fake-liberal propaganda are

1. lack of respect for other people's money, and
2. no understanding of scale
​

For every life saved there will be thousands of background checks.

There will be only one per gun purchase.

As with so many things, the answer is to make people care. That takes a solid culture and a solid educational system. The US culture is fragmenting and the educational system is flailing if not failing.

People like me realize throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. It's about the same thing as taking another drink. It feels good for a little bit, then pretty soon it's a habit, and the risk is it becomes a debilitating habit.

There were fewer mass murders when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values into a melting pot culture. When we get back to that a lot of the problems will go away. Until then I am prepared to accept collateral losses one of which could be me or one of my family. That is how it is.

US culture is changing because America is still a "melting pot" and the "mix of ingredients" is undergoing a demographic shift. Bemoaning reality and yearning for a fictional past is an indicator that you cannot handle change. The saying "adapt or die" applies just as much to thinking as it does to the ecosystem. The world of today and tomorrow will not be the same as yesterday. It is utterly foolish to pretend that a "fairly narrow set of values" is the solution to all your woes.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Obama's "limits" are that he cannot overcome the blind kneejerk obstructionism of the extreme far right in congress? Thank you for clarifying your position.

The lives of 20 innocent children are worth less than the $25 it will cost to run a background check on a gun purchaser? Have you explained to the bereaved parents that you value the lives of their children at $1.25 each?

Two of the problems exacerbated by public education in recent years made worse by fake-liberal propaganda are

1. lack of respect for other people's money, and
2. no understanding of scale
​

For every life saved there will be thousands of background checks.

There will be only one per gun purchase.

As with so many things, the answer is to make people care. That takes a solid culture and a solid educational system. The US culture is fragmenting and the educational system is flailing if not failing.

People like me realize throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. It's about the same thing as taking another drink. It feels good for a little bit, then pretty soon it's a habit, and the risk is it becomes a debilitating habit.

There were fewer mass murders when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values into a melting pot culture. When we get back to that a lot of the problems will go away. Until then I am prepared to accept collateral losses one of which could be me or one of my family. That is how it is.

US culture is changing because America is still a "melting pot" and the "mix of ingredients" is undergoing a demographic shift. Bemoaning reality and yearning for a fictional past is an indicator that you cannot handle change. The saying "adapt or die" applies just as much to thinking as it does to the ecosystem. The world of today and tomorrow will not be the same as yesterday. It is utterly foolish to pretend that a "fairly narrow set of values" is the solution to all your woes.

A. To understand my point on cost/benefit, one must understand scale. You just proved you don't.

B. My woes are few and certainly don't include any of this bullshit. My point is exactly what it's going to take to reduce the number of outrages by culturally alienated nutcases. Your postmodern (self-centered reported as community interest) lack of respect for the money and feelings of others notwithstanding.

Was there anything else?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Two of the problems exacerbated by public education in recent years made worse by fake-liberal propaganda are

1. lack of respect for other people's money, and
2. no understanding of scale
​

For every life saved there will be thousands of background checks.

There will be only one per gun purchase.

As with so many things, the answer is to make people care. That takes a solid culture and a solid educational system. The US culture is fragmenting and the educational system is flailing if not failing.

People like me realize throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. It's about the same thing as taking another drink. It feels good for a little bit, then pretty soon it's a habit, and the risk is it becomes a debilitating habit.

There were fewer mass murders when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values into a melting pot culture. When we get back to that a lot of the problems will go away. Until then I am prepared to accept collateral losses one of which could be me or one of my family. That is how it is.

US culture is changing because America is still a "melting pot" and the "mix of ingredients" is undergoing a demographic shift. Bemoaning reality and yearning for a fictional past is an indicator that you cannot handle change. The saying "adapt or die" applies just as much to thinking as it does to the ecosystem. The world of today and tomorrow will not be the same as yesterday. It is utterly foolish to pretend that a "fairly narrow set of values" is the solution to all your woes.

A. To understand my point on cost/benefit, one must understand scale. You just proved you don't.

B. My woes are few and certainly don't include any of this bullshit. My point is exactly what it's going to take to reduce the number of outrages by culturally alienated nutcases. Your postmodern horseshit notwithstanding.

Was there anything else?

A. Your deflections to "cost/benefit" and "scale" are irrelevant. The issue only concerns the individual undergoing the background check. That you refuse to deal with the relevant point is a tacit concession on your part.

B. Your denial of reality is duly noted. You are offering nothing of value that will deal with the problem at hand other than some outmoded mythical past.

It is doubtful that you have anything else meaningful to offer so there is no point in wasting any further time. Have a nice day.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

There will be only one per gun purchase.

US culture is changing because America is still a "melting pot" and the "mix of ingredients" is undergoing a demographic shift. Bemoaning reality and yearning for a fictional past is an indicator that you cannot handle change. The saying "adapt or die" applies just as much to thinking as it does to the ecosystem. The world of today and tomorrow will not be the same as yesterday. It is utterly foolish to pretend that a "fairly narrow set of values" is the solution to all your woes.

A. To understand my point on cost/benefit, one must understand scale. You just proved you don't.

B. My woes are few and certainly don't include any of this bullshit. My point is exactly what it's going to take to reduce the number of outrages by culturally alienated nutcases. Your postmodern horseshit notwithstanding.

Was there anything else?

A. Your deflections to "cost/benefit" and "scale" are irrelevant. The issue only concerns the individual undergoing the background check. That you refuse to deal with the relevant point is a tacit concession on your part.

B. Your denial of reality is duly noted. You are offering nothing of value that will deal with the problem at hand other than some outmoded mythical past.

It is doubtful that you have anything else meaningful to offer so there is no point in wasting any further time. Have a nice day.

A. No deflection. Anyone not able to understand that for every life saved here will be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of background checks, can't participate as an equal in a discussion of cost/benefit.

Moving on...

B. Like so many postmoderns (self absorbed points of view with no respect for other people's money and no respect for diversity of opinion) "the past" is your projection. My focus is clearly on the future.

This is posted in the main column because as long as disgareements were honest it was easy to respect your thoughts. When you lied about my focus being on the past when it is absolutely and undeniably on the future, you lost that consideration. Now that it is clear you are either a liar or a fool, more people need to see this.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Reagan funded and supported Osama Bin Laden.

Obama killed him.

Nuff said.

It really is THAT simple for the simple minded.
And Obama didn't kill anyone...
Some Marine did.

You forgot to add....

"All hail Obama"

Some Marine did.

Yeah... what's his name? I don't remember either. I would Google it if I really cared.

Point is, it was Obama's TEAM that got that Marine there in the first place and it's Obama's TEAM which is credited for getting Bin Laden.

Would you be happier if we included the word team every time we credited Obama for getting Bin Laden? Does it make any difference in the long run?

Bin Laden will forever be known as being exterminated on Obama's watch.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A. To understand my point on cost/benefit, one must understand scale. You just proved you don't.

B. My woes are few and certainly don't include any of this bullshit. My point is exactly what it's going to take to reduce the number of outrages by culturally alienated nutcases. Your postmodern horseshit notwithstanding.

Was there anything else?

A. Your deflections to "cost/benefit" and "scale" are irrelevant. The issue only concerns the individual undergoing the background check. That you refuse to deal with the relevant point is a tacit concession on your part.

B. Your denial of reality is duly noted. You are offering nothing of value that will deal with the problem at hand other than some outmoded mythical past.

It is doubtful that you have anything else meaningful to offer so there is no point in wasting any further time. Have a nice day.

A. No deflection. Anyone not able to understand that for every life saved here will be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of background checks, can't participate as an equal in a discussion of cost/benefit.

Moving on...

B. Like so many postmoderns (self absorbed points of view with no respect for other people's money and no respect for diversity of opinion) "the past" is your projection. My focus is clearly on the future.

This is posted in the main column because as long as disgareements were honest it was easy to respect your thoughts. When you lied about my focus being on the past when it is absolutely and undeniably on the future, you lost that consideration. Now that it is clear you are either a liar or a fool, more people need to see this.

Ironic that you fling around erroneous allegations like "postmoderns" but throw a temper tantrum when your own myopic focus on the past ("when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values") and your despicable denigration of the grief of the bereaved parents of the 20 innocent children as being nothing more than "shit through a fan" is exposed.

This explains why you deflected from the thread lest anyone else actually read your posts and decide for themselves who is "either a liar or a fool".

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

A. Your deflections to "cost/benefit" and "scale" are irrelevant. The issue only concerns the individual undergoing the background check. That you refuse to deal with the relevant point is a tacit concession on your part.

B. Your denial of reality is duly noted. You are offering nothing of value that will deal with the problem at hand other than some outmoded mythical past.

It is doubtful that you have anything else meaningful to offer so there is no point in wasting any further time. Have a nice day.

A. No deflection. Anyone not able to understand that for every life saved here will be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of background checks, can't participate as an equal in a discussion of cost/benefit.

Moving on...

B. Like so many postmoderns (self absorbed points of view with no respect for other people's money and no respect for diversity of opinion) "the past" is your projection. My focus is clearly on the future.

This is posted in the main column because as long as disgareements were honest it was easy to respect your thoughts. When you lied about my focus being on the past when it is absolutely and undeniably on the future, you lost that consideration. Now that it is clear you are either a liar or a fool, more people need to see this.

Ironic that you fling around erroneous allegations like "postmoderns" but throw a temper tantrum when your own myopic focus on the past ("when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values") and your despicable denigration of the grief of the bereaved parents of the 20 innocent children as being nothing more than "shit through a fan" is exposed.

This explains why you deflected from the thread lest anyone else actually read your posts and decide for themselves who is "either a liar or a fool".

No deflection. My position is what it is. You are either too lame or too mentally weak to deal with it. That isn't my problem.

And your muddying the waters doesn't change the other reality: you are either a liar or a fool.

My objective to ensure the most readers possible determine which.

We are done here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A. No deflection. Anyone not able to understand that for every life saved here will be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of background checks, can't participate as an equal in a discussion of cost/benefit.

Moving on...

B. Like so many postmoderns (self absorbed points of view with no respect for other people's money and no respect for diversity of opinion) "the past" is your projection. My focus is clearly on the future.

This is posted in the main column because as long as disgareements were honest it was easy to respect your thoughts. When you lied about my focus being on the past when it is absolutely and undeniably on the future, you lost that consideration. Now that it is clear you are either a liar or a fool, more people need to see this.

Ironic that you fling around erroneous allegations like "postmoderns" but throw a temper tantrum when your own myopic focus on the past ("when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values") and your despicable denigration of the grief of the bereaved parents of the 20 innocent children as being nothing more than "shit through a fan" is exposed.

This explains why you deflected from the thread lest anyone else actually read your posts and decide for themselves who is "either a liar or a fool".

No deflection. My position is what it is. You are either too lame or too mentally weak to deal with it. That isn't my problem.

And your muddying the waters doesn't change the other reality: you are either a liar or a fool.

My objective to ensure the most readers possible determine which.

We are done here.

For those who which to make an informed decision for themselves here is the link to the thread that DJ is deflecting from;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288527-reagan-vs-obama-post7088178.html#poststop

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Ironic that you fling around erroneous allegations like "postmoderns" but throw a temper tantrum when your own myopic focus on the past ("when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values") and your despicable denigration of the grief of the bereaved parents of the 20 innocent children as being nothing more than "shit through a fan" is exposed.

This explains why you deflected from the thread lest anyone else actually read your posts and decide for themselves who is "either a liar or a fool".

No deflection. My position is what it is. You are either too lame or too mentally weak to deal with it. That isn't my problem.

And your muddying the waters doesn't change the other reality: you are either a liar or a fool.

My objective to ensure the most readers possible determine which.

We are done here.

For those who which to make an informed decision for themselves here is the link to the thread that DJ is deflecting from;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288527-reagan-vs-obama-post7088178.html#poststop

Oh my, am almost hyperventilating at that, desiderata_deo. That is the funniest post here in a while. My deflection is supposedly from some lame position on some bad thing that happened. I have forgotten what the specific issue was, but my empathy was insufficient for d-d. There was no deflection; My position is clear. D-d seemed to believe there is some requirement for me to go on about it every time he/she asked me to explain myself.

To cut to the chase, folks, I am a very bad man. That is d-d's position - and perhaps yours. But that isn't what brought these posts to the main column, it was d-d's false claim my focus is on the past.

It isn't. It never was. It never will be. As those who follow the link will discover (and most bright sixth graders would figure out), I don't worry too much about the past. My primary focus is here and now; whatever focus remains is directed forward.

Again, d-d, thanks for tattling on me. It's been about fifty-five years since that happened and the laugh is welcome if only because it so clearly identifies you as a postmodern.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No deflection. My position is what it is. You are either too lame or too mentally weak to deal with it. That isn't my problem.

And your muddying the waters doesn't change the other reality: you are either a liar or a fool.

My objective to ensure the most readers possible determine which.

We are done here.

For those who which to make an informed decision for themselves here is the link to the thread that DJ is deflecting from;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288527-reagan-vs-obama-post7088178.html#poststop

Oh my, am almost hyperventilating at that, desiderata_deo. That is the funniest post here in a while. My deflection is supposedly from some lame position on some bad thing that happened. I have forgotten what the specific issue was, but my empathy was insufficient for d-d. But there was no deflection; I honestly don't care and d-d seemed to believe there is some requirement for me to go on about it.

Folks, I am a very bad man. That is d-d's position - and perhaps yours. But that isn't what brought these posts to the main column, it was d-d's false claim my focus is on the past.

It isn't. It never was. It never will be. As those who follow the link will discover (and most bright sixth graders would figure out), I don't worry too much about the past. My primary focus is here and now; whatever focus remains is directed forward.

Again, d-d, thanks for tattling on me. It's been about fifty-five years since that happened and the laugh is welcome if only because it so clearly identifies you as a postmodern.

Are you denying that these are your own words;

There were fewer mass murders when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values into a melting pot culture. When we get back to that a lot of the problems will go away.

Care to explain exactly how it is a "lie" to interpret what you said as a focus on the past?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

For those who which to make an informed decision for themselves here is the link to the thread that DJ is deflecting from;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288527-reagan-vs-obama-post7088178.html#poststop

Oh my, am almost hyperventilating at that, desiderata_deo. That is the funniest post here in a while. My deflection is supposedly from some lame position on some bad thing that happened. I have forgotten what the specific issue was, but my empathy was insufficient for d-d. But there was no deflection; I honestly don't care and d-d seemed to believe there is some requirement for me to go on about it.

Folks, I am a very bad man. That is d-d's position - and perhaps yours. But that isn't what brought these posts to the main column, it was d-d's false claim my focus is on the past.

It isn't. It never was. It never will be. As those who follow the link will discover (and most bright sixth graders would figure out), I don't worry too much about the past. My primary focus is here and now; whatever focus remains is directed forward.

Again, d-d, thanks for tattling on me. It's been about fifty-five years since that happened and the laugh is welcome if only because it so clearly identifies you as a postmodern.

Are you denying that these are your own words;

There were fewer mass murders when Americans shared a fairly narrow set of values into a melting pot culture. When we get back to that a lot of the problems will go away.

Care to explain exactly how it is a "lie" to interpret what you said as a focus on the past?

Sure.

This part is instructive.

This part - the remedy - is focus on the future.

Does this do it, or is there more tediousness yet to be inflicted?

 

[Freewill]

Reagan funded and supported Osama Bin Laden.

Obama killed him.

Nuff said.

It really is THAT simple for the simple minded.
And Obama didn't kill anyone...
Some Marine did.

You forgot to add....

"All hail Obama"

Some Marine did.

Yeah... what's his name? I don't remember either. I would Google it if I really cared.

Point is, it was Obama's TEAM that got that Marine there in the first place and it's Obama's TEAM which is credited for getting Bin Laden.

Would you be happier if we included the word team every time we credited Obama for getting Bin Laden? Does it make any difference in the long run?

Bin Laden will forever be known as being exterminated on Obama's watch.

You both are not very informed, it was NAVY SEALS, you know SEAL team 6.

We have to have known where OBL was for quite some time. It just got to the point where Obama needed an infusion into his dismal record so he had someone else take OBL out.

His team also murdered a 16 year old American, where is the rah rah for that?

Besides, where is the real proof that he was killed that night? Conveniently on the bottom of the ocean.

I stand corrected, maybe a Marine did kill him at Tora Bora

Osama Bin Laden Death: New Details Revealed About Burial

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/osama-bin-laden-death_n_2172275.html

All we got to go by is an administration that has proved not to be very good with the truth.