You've taken a fact that we both agree on and made speculations regarding it which you presented as fact but for which you have no support.
Just applying a little common sense to an issue that seems to be hushed up a little (I assume to prevent further embarrassment).
What's your point? I've taken facts we both agree on & reached a conclusion based on those facts. Isn't that how it typically works? It's not like we can expect officials to admit something that would prove to be embarrassing, right? BO might look foolish right?
We all have to keep our goals in mind, if the point is to argue that Obama is a horrible president then only facts that support that belief should be pointed out. It's confusing when other facts are presented that don't support that basic goal. Right David?
Soo... So who discovered it? How did you find out about it? What was the source of the information you got that came after mine? You're saying unequivocally that, "As in turned out, the 2 1/2 inch crack dated back to 1962 and had been documented & deemed safe many times in the past. Documented and deemed safe by whom? This last part contradicts what I have read. All I"m looking for is your source so I can compare the two and decide for myself what the real story is. I'm not arguing that I'm right or that you're wrong, or that Obama is right or Obama is wrong. I just want to know where you found that the crack has been documented and deemed safe many times in the past.
I think we've been down this road once already. I watch & listen to local news from Louisville, that's where I got it.
