TheGoodShepherd
Rookie
- Apr 2, 2008
- 344
- 12
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #181
Dude, you can call me a personality all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. My posts have been pretty cut and dry. You have made a claim, (among many) and posted bogus evidence that doesn't back up your claim. You have taken articles and "evidence" and applied a conclusion that doesn't match or even relate. An analogy to your debate:
TGS says : (In essence)--"When you strike a match, you get water"
And for the record, I have much more personality than you will ever have....
Again, you make broad accusations without referencing out specific points of contention.
Are you doing this on purpose, or is your laziness getting the better of you again?
Point out the article. Show us how you "think" it doesn't match the conclusions.
You somehow made the assumption my opinion is rooted solely for opinion's sake.
Well, it is not. Rather it is that of the GAO which blasted the way in which the war is being fought. The GAO, not me, concluded the current structure is rife with corruption, waste and mismanagement due to what the GAO said was a lack of government control and transparency.
Typing " you don't know what you're talking about," or " posted bogus evidence" does nothing to substantiate any of your claims.
What it does, is show an unforgivable propensity to make dull accusations without offering any specifics.
You are, what you have always proven to be: a lazy poster who thinks typing " I owned you" or "you don't know what you're talking about," somehow discredits anything the GAO has concluded in its reports.
Start doing your homework or do not. Embarrassing yourself is not an option you can continue to afford to make.
Find an authoritative report discrediting the methods and conclusions of the non-partisan GAO report. Can you find one? Have you even attempted?
Be specific or get lost.
It's really as simple as that.