Gen. McChrystal disparages Obama and Administration in Interview, Ordered Home

[ColoradoGuy]

BACK to McChrystal for a second...

As to this particular issue, I would like to see the entire transcript of the recorded notes from this interview... it's very possible that the quote (even if accurate) was taken out of context from the question(s) raised or the track of the discussion. McChrystal is no dummy, but I can envision a clever question or two eliciting such a response. It's unfortunate: military leaders are today treated like any other celebrity or politician. If they shun interviews or public attention, they are assumed to be sinister puppets of an evil force. If they open up to the press or express opinions, they risk running counter to established policy or position. It's an easy line to cross, but a difficult line to walk.

I assume McChrystal will offer his resignation.

I heard an interview with the author today. I don't believe this was gotcha journalism at all, and the general supposedly approved the article prior to publication. Maybe he thought it was 'cool' to be interviewed by Rolling Stone and got carried away, or maybe he's frustrated with his near impossible mission.

It appears you're right: there was no "gotcha" involved. At the time I posted, I should have been very clear that I had not read the article yet nor seen any information about the context or content of the disparaging quotes. Apologies to all for omitting that necessary preface.

I'm sort of old-school: I want to understand as much as I can before I formulate and promote an opinion. To that end, I was merely pointing to a possible alternate reality involving clever questions and potentially innocent answers taken out of context. I do agree with you maxcok:

For what ever reason, it's really unconscionable and unfortunate he shot his mouth off.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

And now, OFF of McChrystal for a second...

Ok, since Trinity refuses to reveal her post history... I'll do it for her...

As you can see by the corresponding links, this is a tabulation of Trinity's entire post history for the past year, broken down by forum...

First, the total... (1454 posts)
http://www.lpsg.org/search.php?searchid=10060379

The portion of that total made to just the politics forum... (1439 posts, or roughly 99%)
http://www.lpsg.org/search.php?searchid=10060386

All of the rest, combined... (15 posts, or roughly 1%)
http://www.lpsg.org/search.php?searchid=10060395

You'll note that among this group, several of these posts were also made to political type threads, that happened to be in 'etc, etc'... Trinity has replied to what amounts to just a single non-political thread in the past year, and that was a thread about Michael Jackson shortly after he died.


And here's where it gets really entertaining...

The number of posts where Trinity has mentioned Obama by name... (1014 posts, or roughly 70% of all posts in the past year.
http://www.lpsg.org/search.php?searchid=10060438

Within these 1014 posts, Obama's name is mentioned literally thousands of times. (Sometimes as many as 15 times in a single post, to even as many as 21 times in a single post)


The number of posts in Trinity's entire post history where Obama is mentioned by name... (1889 out of a total of 2667, or roughly 71%... and this is going back to 2006!)
http://www.lpsg.org/search.php?searchid=10060457


And here's the real kicker... Within the politics forum over the past year, there have been 9995 posts by ALL members combined, which mentions Obama by name (as of the time of this post)...
http://www.lpsg.org/search.php?searchid=10060470

This means that as a single member of a forum that has tens of thousands of active members, Trinity alone has made over 10% of all such posts, but due to her flooding of each post with his name numerous times, accounts for what I conservatively estimate to be 20-25% of all instances where Obama's name is mentioned here...

That's right... You just read verifiable statistical evidence that Trinity, as a single member among nearly 50,000 active members accounts for roughly 1 out of every 5 times Obama's name is mentioned on this website... Or put more simply, Trinity mentions Obama by name roughly 10,000 times more frequently than the typical active LPSG member...

And Trinity does all of this while not making even the slightest, remotest contribution to this site's intended purpose.

So, is the user Trinity a paid political shill, or someone with a serious mental condition? You decide...

I would like to commend talltpaguy for exposing :Eyecrazy: and providing undeniable and incontrovertible proof that she is certainly not your "average" user and appears to be on a mission to incite others with a undeniable and obvious anti-Obama rhetoric. She could be, I suppose, a paid political shill or someone with a serious mental condition. Neither are healthy for a site such as LPSG. She could also be someone with an agenda other than community. And that, my friends, is unhealthier.

Let's recall why this site exists... it is NOT to obsessively post content in a fashion described in the TOS as "trolling". While I am qualified to have an opinion about this particular user, I am not qualified to judge her. That, I leave to the site's moderators and administrative staff.

So... I would ask the moderator team to investigate this particular user's bona fides. If it is determined by the moderator team that action is warranted, I would ask them to take such action. Violation of this site's TOS by any user must be addressed or the site will devolve into unregulated mayhem.

I'd like to know how anything one posts here is not being "used" for propoganda of sorts and Google Botting? Please. I highly doubt her threads she's making have Google Bots on her mind.

So let's establish some rules, those who read here can't have opinion on what goes on here? Those who post about Obama only in a negative light should be banned? Those who only post in the politics forum should be banned? I didn't see any of these rules in the tos.

I consider most of how she is treated to be coming from people who can't argue politics without getting beligerant about it. Suddenly, she's a man, she's multiple people, possibly men AND women....she's working for Google Bots? Can that be proven? I could say anyone who starts any thread topic multiple times could be working for Google Bots and something about a search Matrix? So yeah, LETS STOP THAT SORT OF MADNESS....omg. Then i read TWICE that someone is joking she must be on drugs. And then someone else thinks she's for the grass roots movement.

Better yet, i think we should call her a Commie and get MacArther to take a look at her. Maybe we can even bring out the shoulder gloves.

Just admit your true intentions, you just want her banned. That's obvious. So who is next, if they post several threads about Obama- they will be gone too? Maybe it's those damn google bots strolling about the matrix. LOL

You guys are the ones who need the therapy. Her points are well driven with back up and its just not a good enough reason to ban her, because that isnt in the TOS as a rule. So let's find some invisible reason why she must be here trying to rile us up.

I chalk it all up to- Obama isnt what you thought he would be and someone is reminding you about it. It just irks you to think someone on her side of the aisle actually can argue her way out of a paper sack. She works heavily to keep you all on topic. Or shall i say "He, she, it?"

Oh and Propoganda is relative. What i see here daily written by those attacking her and Flashy is what I consider to be propoganda, so should i put in an order for those folks to be banned if my opinion on proganda is being met? Another invisible, hard to prove, relative parameter.....

If anyone but Trinity or Flashy wrote the same thread, we wouldnt be talking about google bots, drugs, grass roots, gender identity disorder, faking her persona, banning them for being a troll, etc. And if that's the truth, which i believe it is, you guys can't handle the truth that you'd treat anyone else differently.

I've seen the hate baiting that goes on around here, it usually ends up getting people like Flashy riled up and banned. But it doesnt make Trinity say things that can legitimately get her banned at all. It's a mere other side of the aisle opinion. Deal with it, or close down the Politics board.

I'm fucking tired of this banning thread getting tossed around left and right, only for certain people.

Mademoiselle Rouge -- I believe you are uninformed as to how Google works or how individuals and corporations "use" Google to promote themselves, their causes, and yes, their political beliefs. I appreciate that you are standing up for this particular user because you believe that is the right thing to do, but I also think you will agree with me that it is up to the site moderator and administration teams to determine what happens next. If this particular user is subjected to any punishment, I am sure you will understand that it is because there was a legitimate concern about her particular actions on this site and not because of a partisan response based on her views or anyone else's.

Closing down the Politics Board is a silly idea; enforcing the TOS for LPSG is not.

 

[TomCat84]

actually it was his insight that led to the act,; I'm sure he was fully cognizant the act was against his SELF-INTEREST, but acted to observe his larger duty, hence his courageousness

had we seen more of that throughout history, our textbooks would not be as full of the atrocities and misfortunes that have been recorded

I'm going to walk away from this fucking thread before I get banned. I'm absolutely done with the fucking trolls around here.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

First, nowhere does it state one must balance their posting to many topics or sub-forums. It is not a condition of membership, and therefore not something that must be addressed as it is irrelevant. Many people on LPSG frequent only one, or a few forums, or find the majority of their posts are in one forum.

That's not the point, nor the reason why I brought up Trinity's posting statistics.

First, it was to establish the fact that (s)he engages in her instigative activity constantly. Secondly, it was also used to demonstrate that (s)he does it with the intention to infuriate since every new topic Trinity has created since Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination in 2008 has been worded to not only demonize the President or the current administration, but to antagonize anyone who voted for him. Plus, (s)he's known to try and take threads off completely off topic to serve his/her own purposes. Trinity was called on it by a mod just a few days ago in a thread regarding Barton. Instead of staying on topic, (s)he decided to talk about financial contributions that Obama received from oil companies and then tried to argue that it was still relevant. All this in a seemingly "eloquent tone" which blinds people from noticing what Trinity's true motives are on this board. With all of the political news that is out there on a national and international level, why does Trinity always feel the need to continually make every issue about one person?

Additionally, Trinity's topics and stated positions have found support with a few members, which speaks only to a political divide amongst the membership, not necessarily subjects meant to "inflame" as her thoughts echo a significant portion of the United States. If I may view her posts through an Americentric lens.

Even the most hateful of sentiments may gather supporters. When I was racially attacked by a few people a year or so ago, one or two people found no problem with what he said or did. Again, having supporters is not the point, and it has nothing to do with arguments being on a "political divide". You do forget that (s)he claims to be a Democrat, so if this board is so lopsided to the liberal mindset that would mean that she's arguing with other like-minded people and technically that divide doesn't exist. But for some "strange" reason it does. Also, as a person who is looked at by many as a savage brute who attacks everyone, Trinity insults people just like everyone else. Grant it, (s)he uses the same two or three repetitive, passive aggressive comments about people "not getting it", making a fool of oneself or claiming they have a low IQ. But in the end, (s)he's basically calling everyone stupid for not blindly agreeing with the barrage of opinionated source material (s)he presents as "fact".

Contrary to belief, the issue surrounding the volatile attitudes towards Trinity is much more than just your typical Hatfield vs. McCoy shouting match. Again, other noted conservatives like starinvestor have made controversial and/or unpopular threads that may have rustled a few feathers, but not to the same volume, persistence or indignation as Trinity. We can easily take one particular part of the issue and make it seem as if his/her actions are acceptable. However, when all of the pieces art together it becomes clear as to why (s)he is here and it's time we stop laying a blind eye to all of this.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

That's not the point, nor the reason why I brought up Trinity's posting statistics.

First, it was to establish the fact that (s)he engages in her instigative activity constantly. Secondly, it was also used to demonstrate that (s)he does it with the intention to infuriate since every new topic Trinity has created since Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination in 2008 has been worded to not only demonize the President or the current administration, but to antagonize anyone who voted for him.
I have posted about politics, on etc. and this board, since the election period began in early 2008 and am aware of Trinity's opinion of Obama. I voted for him and am not antagonized.

Plus, (s)he's known to try and take threads off completely off topic to serve his/her own purposes. Trinity was called on it by a mod just a few days ago in a thread regarding Barton. Instead of staying on topic, (s)he decided to talk about financial contributions that Obama received from oil companies and then tried to argue that it was still relevant.

Threads go off topic and/or people find a way to draw parallels and inferences that one may not like, that's all over LPSG.

All this in a seemingly "eloquent tone" which blinds people from noticing what Trinity's true motives are on this board. With all of the political news that is out there on a national and international level, why does Trinity always feel the need to continually make every issue about one person?

One can only speculate about "Trinity's true motives", however, everyone has the power to ignore her posts and focus on threads which address other "national and international" news events.


Even the most hateful of sentiments may gather supporters.

Her posts are consistently critical, not hateful or falling under the definition of hate-speech. Further, her beliefs and statements are in line with a not-so-insignificant sector of the American political populace. Even if Trinity acts as the only voice that represents that ideology on this board, that opinion is valid in the scheme of American politics.

When I was racially attacked by a few people a year or so ago, one or two people found no problem with what he said or did. Again, having supporters is not the point, and it has nothing to do with arguments being on a "political divide". You do forget that (s)he claims to be a Democrat, so if this board is so lopsided to the liberal mindset that would mean that she's arguing with other like-minded people and technically that divide doesn't exist. But for some "strange" reason it does.

Perhaps Trinity is a conservative, blue dog, or anti-Obama democrat? Who knows, but self-identifying as a democrat does not mean she has to agree with any other liberal or democrat.

Also, as a person who is looked at by many as a savage brute who attacks everyone, Trinity insults people just like everyone else. Grant it, (s)he uses the same two or three repetitive, passive aggressive comments about people "not getting it", making a fool of oneself or claiming they have a low IQ. But in the end, (s)he's basically calling everyone stupid for not blindly agreeing with the barrage of opinionated source material (s)he presents as "fact".

If true, what's the issue? There seems to be a lack of respectful debate on all sides, at least for the U.S. topics.

Contrary to belief, the issue surrounding the volatile attitudes towards Trinity is much more than just your typical Hatfield vs. McCoy shouting match. Again, other noted conservatives like starinvestor have made controversial and/or unpopular threads that may have rustled a few feathers, but not to the same volume, persistence or indignation as Trinity.

Unpopular to whom? Not me. This is a political forum, which means it is open to all manner of political thought, whether it corresponds with the majority opinion or not.

There are no guidelines in place stating how many threads one can create in this forum.


We can easily take one particular part of the issue and make it seem as if his/her actions are acceptable. However, when all of the pieces art together it becomes clear as to why (s)he is here and it's time we stop laying a blind eye to all of this.

Taken all together, Trinity is here to post her opinion, like all other active members. Any evidence of her taking part in a 'vast right-wing conspiracy', if against the terms of this site, should be forwarded to the admins.

 

[maxcok]

Who are these clueless ppls who never participate in the Politics forum, and where did they suddenly get the profound insight to instruct regular active contributors about the dynamics and the problems here? What prompted them to suddenly show up in blind defense of unequivocally the most divisive and problematic poster in the forum, and then further expound on the unrelated case of another notorious troublemaker? I would never presume to rant on the conduct of posters in the Chat room for example, because I rarely participate there. Anyone is free to express an opinion of course, regardless of how uninformed they are. And I guess it's nice for people to have friends and supporters, however obvious their personal bias.




P.S. Anyone interested in seriously discussing the McChrystal situation, it can now be found here:

Obama replaces McChrystal with Petraeus​

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Who are these clueless ppls who never participate in the Politics forum, and where did they suddenly get the profound insight to instruct regular active contributors about the dynamics and the problems here? What prompted them to suddenly show up in blind defense of unequivocally the most divisive and problematic poster in the forum, and then further expound on the unrelated case of another notorious troublemaker? I would never presume to rant on the conduct of posters in the Chat room for example, because I rarely participate there. Anyone is free to express an opinion of course, regardless of how uninformed they are. And I guess it's nice for people to have friends and supporters, however obvious their personal bias.

If directed towards me, I think you should check my post history before stating I am, first, "clueless", or "never participate in the Politics forum", both assumptions are incorrect.

 

[maxcok]

If directed towards me, I think you should check my post history before stating I am, first, "clueless", or "never participate in the Politics forum", both assumptions are incorrect.

I have checked your posting history and I will concede that it shows participation in the Politics forum. However, compared to the regular contributors here you are not that active, especially in regards American political issues where the poster in question is exclusively active, and your contributions are spotty at best. That may explain why I am not familiar with you. My comment was not so much directed at you as one of your cohorts, but I will gladly amend my statement to say "never or marginally" participate.

I stand by the rest of my statement regarding this issue in particular and your analysis of the forum in general.

Plainly put, it ain't about ideology.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I have checked your posting history and I will concede that it shows participation in the Politics forum. However, compared to the regular contributors here you are not that active, especially in regards American political issues where the poster in question is exclusively active, and your contributions are spotty at best. That may explain why I am not familiar with you. My comment was not so much directed at you as one of your cohorts, but I will gladly amend my statement to say "never or marginally" participate.

As for the rest of my statement, I stand by it regarding this particular issue and your analysis of the forum in general.

Plainly put, it ain't about ideology.

First, your criticism of Red and I, the two who offered a defense of Trinity is this thread, is unwarranted. Both of us have a long tenure on this site and in discussing politics, whether in etc. or this sub-forum, and are more than capable of assessing the condition of this sub-forum, or, for that matter, any other we may feel the inclination to address.

Further, my contributions are not "spotty", they are measured and reflect a posting history that shows I am involved in many areas of LPSG. Your reflexive attack on the personal to critique exchanges on the right of Trinity to post is indicative of what is wrong with this forum. I, my, by your estimation, "cluelessness", posting history, and your feeling of being "familiar" with me, are all irrelevant to the discussion of Trinity.

 

[maxcok]

First, your criticism of Red and I, the two who offered a defense of Trinity is this thread, is unwarranted. Both of us have a long tenure on this site and in discussing politics, whether in etc. or this sub-forum, and are more than capable of assessing the condition of this sub-forum, or, for that matter, any other we may feel the inclination to address.

Further, my contributions are not "spotty", they are measured and reflect a posting history that shows I am involved in many areas of LPSG. Your reflexive attack on the personal to critique exchanges on the right of Trinity to post is indicative of what is wrong with this forum. I, my, by your estimation, "cluelessness", posting history, and your feeling of being "familiar" with me, are all irrelevant to the discussion of Trinity.

My comments are neither "reflexive" nor "personal", nor are they an "attack" by the wildest stretch of imagination. (That seems to be a word tossed about quite freely here.) They are well-reasoned observations, delivered quite calmly I think, particularly in comparison to the hyperbolic rants of the posters addressed.

Your spin of my comments and your deflection of the real issue are noted. Your simplistic contention that this is a Left vs. Right ideological issue is inaccurate, "irrelevant", and in short, clueless, if not wholly disingenuous.

Do carry on here if you like. I am done.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I firmly believe if it were anyone elses screen name saying the same thing they wouldn't be nearly as upset. They are out to ban Trinity and look forward to posts like this so they can maybe catch her in some violation of the TOS. Look at the way they salivate to try to discredit her gender or mental health or drug user status.

People have seen her on cam, she is a female. Not an IT, not a HE not a (s)he. She's a female and as long as you guys continue to doubt that after people have told you she is a female for sure, you are just trying to be rude on purpose and anything you say after that just looks like tripe.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

My comments are neither "reflexive" nor "personal", nor are they an "attack" by the wildest stretch of imagination. (That seems to be a word tossed about quite freely here.) They are well-reasoned observations, delivered quite calmly I think, particularly in comparison to the hyperbolic rants of the posters addressed.

Your post was ill-informed and personal in nature as it described the contributions as "clueless", "uninformed", and "suddenly show up in blind defense", rather than responding to the points made therein.

Your spin of my comments and your deflection of the real issue are noted. Your simplistic contention that this is a Left vs. Right ideological issue is inaccurate, "irrelevant" and in short, clueless, if not wholly disingenuous.

No spin necessary, your comments were flawed and never addressed "the real issue", whatever you may view that to be as I assume my view of the "real issue" differs.

Do carry on here if you like. I am done.

.

I firmly believe if it were anyone elses screen name saying the same thing they wouldn't be nearly as upset. They are out to ban Trinity and look forward to posts like this so they can maybe catch her in some violation of the TOS. Look at the way they salivate to try to discredit her gender or mental health or drug user status.

People have seen her on cam, she is a female. Not an IT, not a HE not a (s)he. She's a female and as long as you guys continue to doubt that after people have told you she is a female for sure, you are just trying to be rude on purpose and anything you say after that just looks like tripe.

I agree, however, it seems we are now "cohorts", so I'm not sure I'm comfortable agreeing with you in public. :09:

 

[maxcok]

. . . . rather than responding to the points made therein.

. . . your comments were flawed and never addressed "the real issue", whatever you may view that to be as I assume my view of the "real issue" differs.

I responded to your points, and addressed "the real issue" thusly:

. . . Your simplistic contention that this is a Left vs. Right ideological issue is inaccurate, "irrelevant", and in short, clueless, if not wholly disingenuous.

. . . and in addition, as I said earlier, clearly personally biased.

Plainly put, it ain't about ideology.

Do carry on here if you like. I am done.

Really, I am done.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I responded to your points, and addressed "the real issue" thusly:

. . . and in addition, as I said earlier, clearly personally biased.

Really, I am done.

That was not included in your initial post, which, as I stated, did not address what you deem to be the "real issue" or the specific content of my posts.

 

[maxcok]

That was not included in your initial post, which, as I stated, did not address what you deem to be the "real issue" or the specific content of my posts.

Really?? My first post addressing you:

I guess it's nice for people to have friends and supporters, however obvious their personal bias.

Plus (addressed to Mlle R, and except for the level of participation, apropos to you):

Trying to spin this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue is absurd. It's not a question of ideology. At all. It's a question of tactics and a question of degree. Spinning every issue to attack Obama is not honest debate. Starting four threads in the space of four hours to attack the president, as the poster did today, is excessive by any standard, even the Holy 3in1's questionable standards.

Your assessment of the Politics forum as being the exclusive domain of Democratic, liberal or progressive politicos is simplistic and inaccurate, and particularly curious coming from someone who does not participate in the forum. Anyone is welcome here, and all views are welcome in the debate. What is not appreciated is simpleminded, singleminded rhetoric that is repeated ad nauseum, and is either at odds with reality, or completely unsupported by objective and verifiable sources.

Done.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I firmly believe if it were anyone elses screen name saying the same thing they wouldn't be nearly as upset. They are out to ban Trinity and look forward to posts like this so they can maybe catch her in some violation of the TOS.

Dwelling on a particular subject that is not related to the purpose of this site (this site DOES have a purpose, and politics isn't it. The mods themselves have stated that the politics forum exists to keep it out of the rest of the site) to a degree that is verifiably several thousand times greater than the typical person here, has nothing to do with personal ideology or a 'witch hunt'... This isn't someone who is curiously predisposed to discussing a certain narrow range of topics, this is someone who is obsessively methodical about a singular subject and does so with unprecedented proliferation that defies comprehension.

When a member dwells on any certain narrow topic to the point of doing so at a rate 10,000 times more frequently than the typical member, it begs the question why is this occurring, and how is it beneficial to the community and the site's operation?

Lastly, if a single person out of 50,000 active members accounting for about 20% of unrelated content on a website, doesn't count as spam/post flooding in your book, then please, explain to us what you do consider spam/post flooding.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Actually I'm probably more for Obama than Trinity ever will be. I don't really mind the guy. I don't have any major qualms with him. So technically it's not a personal bias at all. In fact, I don't have much of a problem with her posts because people did this all the time with Bush when was president. So i'm technically immune from being offended by it. You guys just haven't been used to the criticism of your president the way the Republicans are used to it.

I bet some of you are technically losing sleep over this you are so bothered by it. You can tell by the determination to eliminate her from lpsg that it's YOUR personal bias against her. I don't even really know her, i just know she is a female because she had a lot of friends in the chatroom and many people want to be rude about her gender on purpose. It was mainly that which made me jump in and take up for her right to speak her mind on politics just as much as you guys can because she's not really bothering anyone but a few of you die hards who consider it a "priviledge" for others to debate you.

It's that sort of mindset that this is YOUR turf and you can choose whomever you want to be here and participate or not depending on how much they personally offend YOU. Well there are a lot of other people who are afraid to speak up talking to me and others in PM about this. So when Kittie and i speak up, we are speaking up because we are feeling what you are doing is personally biased and wrong and if you took your special "rules" and applied them elsewhere on the site it just wouldnt fly.

This is not a forum for the elite, its not just a forum for those who speak and argue the way you do. You guys are not in the least considered a priviledge, even if you might consider yourselves that. Nor are you the people who set the rules for LPSG, as much as you might want to. This is the forum where people are allowed to talk about politics, create as many political threads as they want, link to news sources, even if its a news place YOU don't like.

The people here who consider their big words as elite political priviledged members are just offended that someone can post equally as ugly things about your side as you typically do about the other side.

I don't agree with most of what Trinity posts about, but i believe in her right to be able to post it, even if it pisses you guys off. In fact, the fact it pisses you guys off makes me want her to have her right to post here even more so this little corner of LPSG doesn't become some rotten ingrown lovefest of one-sided belief. You guys should have to get your feathers ruffled, if you don't you aren't arguing politics.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Really?

Plus:

My response was to this quote:

Your simplistic contention that this is a Left vs. Right ideological issue is inaccurate, "irrelevant", and in short, clueless, if not wholly disingenuous.

Do carry on here if you like. I am done.

Which was not included in your initial post.
http://www.lpsg.org/189718-gen-mcchrystal-disparages-obama-and-6.html#post2838578

Done.

 

[maxcok]

My response was to this quote:


Which was not included in your initial post.
http://www.lpsg.org/189718-gen-mcchrystal-disparages-obama-and-6.html#post2838578

:wtf2:
What the fuck are you even talking about? Talk about deflecting from the "real issue".

:lame::gives2::tool: :bryce:

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

:wtf2:
What the fuck are you even talking about? Talk about deflecting from the "real issue".

:lame::gives2::tool: :bryce:

I thought you were "done"?
Your opening response was incorrect and failed to address the responses I offered in this thread beyond questioning allegiances and post history, if you can only recover from that by using emoticons stating I am "a tool" or "shut up, bitch", that, again, shows one of the main problems with this sub-forum.