I followed that link you gave, and found something very, very interesting: the article is about transportation on an inland canal, not on the open sea, and it refers to goods transported by barge, not ship. There's a big difference, because many barges have no propulsion and are moved around by towboats.

In fewer words, if the attack was not initiated by Hillary or President Lawnchair, then how did their inaccurate initial label of it cause the deaths that went with it?

Hooray, hooray, it's a lovely day,
For I have found my cow!

Yes, but what you're paying for there is support, not the OS itself.

There have been studies done before asking average people to estimate how high an object is in the sky (generally balloons or kites) and the estimates were generally awful. Even judging the difference between 60 and 200 feet is generally beyond the range of what most humans can comprehend in vertical distance.

*Shrug!* So set up a dual-boot system, defaulting to Linux. Linux can read/write Windows partitions quite well, TYVM, although the opposite isn't true. (There may be third-party software for that but if so, I'm not aware of it.)

No, no, no! It's Obi-Wan Torvald!

Windows 7; paid for, ad free, and I can control the updates.

Linux. Just as ad free, just as easy to control the updates and it doesn't cost one, red cent.

So you're trying to tell us that there are secret deals that congress doesn't know about, but you do? I'd love to know who your sources are that congress is not able to communicate with.

If they didn't initiate it, then why are you so angry about them having the cause of it wrong the first day they briefed the media on it? How can you be so sure that they knew how it came to be - and gave an alternate story for it - if they didn't call it in themselves? Your claim that they initially were lying can only be backed up if they knew that what they said was wrong. You haven't provided any other explanation for why they would have known it to be wrong, unless they had themselves fabricated the intelligence reports that existed up to that point (which, in the world of your conspiracy, would have only been done for political gain).

So apparently your assumptions about what someone else might think about someone is more important than the fact that this is not binding without congress approving it. Gotcha.

Hold on a second, here. One of your Benghazi conspiracies claims that she - with or without President Lawnchair - initiated the attack on Benghazi for political gain. If that is the case, then she most certainly is not a disaster as the attack most definitely happened. I know you champion so many conspiracies that you have a hard time noticing when one is contradicting another, but this one is pretty damned obvious.

You've jumped well into conspiracy land again, there. Congress has full authority to trash and/or disregard the proposed treaty. President Lawnchair sent his top diplomat over to work this out but that doesn't make it a done deal.

You can assign blame however you like, but the punch was thrown by Clarkson. Nobody physically forced his hand. If he really is the same person on and off screen, he may want to consider seeking psychiatric help.

Personally I think he's hilarious. I've been watching Top Gear for about a decade or more now. That is not an endorsement for him to be as arrogant off screen as on, though; I view Top Gear as a source of entertainment. People who watched Breaking Bad didn't expect Bryan Cranston to be a meth cooker in real life; why would I expect Clarkson to be the same person in real life that he portrays on TV?

I haven't purchased a new desktop CPU in at least that long. I know we have great new stuff out there but I just haven't seen anything come in for some time that justifies the cost when my existing stuff still works for what I do.

The OP may have meant "nearing," instead of "past." One of the reasons we went through so many FAE weapons during Desert Storm is that they were close to their Best Use By date and it was cheaper to expend them in combat than pay to dispose of them.

This sounds like a sour grapes statement coming from you. Your hero gave a famous speech where he condemned an entire nation as "evil"; and you are apparently astonished that they did not instantaneously change course just to get within his good graces.

If we look at the white house statement on the deal it specifically mentions congress not less than 4 times, including:

Which is decidedly different from any kind of go-it-alone, my-way-or-the-highway type situation as your rhetoric is trying to imply. Nothing is guaranteed to Iran at this point.

So your claim of this being against

Is based on nothing at all. Government is still moving on the matter and can still move away from it. This is not a bullied push towards the invasion of a sovereign nation this time.