Obama is a decent person: McCain

[foxpaws]

I have taken relevant campaign fundraisers - for this year's political campaign, the Ayers fundraiser association was 13 years ago.

I have done the same thing that you have done - no different. You haven't proved an 'alliance' with Ayers, or any 'active' association with him. Show me.... He happened to be on the same board as Ayers - they are both local leaders in the same community, Ayer's had a fund raiser for Obama, the same as Sargeant, Williams and Lindner did for McCain. Same guilt by association.

Ayers fundraiser was in 1995, the last time he gave money to Obama was 2001 ($200)

And do you have any idea of what the CAC is shag - you keep referring to it. Chicago Annenberg Challenge was one of the Annenberg Challenge project sites (which included Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco) that received part of Walter Annenberg's gift to support public school reform. Ohhhh scary terrorist group. Ayers was one of the authors of the original grant proposal to Walter Annenberg's estate to get the money into the Chicago area to improve Chicago's public schools. He worked to get the grant. The Board of Directors (which included Obama) was chosen by Adele Smith Simmons, who was involved with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation which is a major private grant-making private foundation. She was chosen because The MacArthur foundation is one of the largest independent foundations involved in school issues. Hey, a respected Chicago area professor who was active in getting private funds to shore up Chicago's beleaguered public school system and a State Senator representing the Chicago area who was known for his work in Chicago schools managed to cross at the biggest foundation set up for Chicago public schools ever.

So, it is OK for McCain to take money from war profiteers who are raping the American public? Shouldn't McCain be distancing himself from Sargeant, who he has taken funds from as recently as 9 months ago, and is currently working for the campaign in Florida just as Obama should be distancing himself from someone he hasn't taken a dime from for 7 years, and nothing from in the presidential election?

And speaking of 'raping'. Williams has continually shown himself to be a political albatross. McCain should have dropped the money at the front door just 4 months ago and ran away. Williams' 'joke' should be offensive to everyone - including you shag. Saying that a woman should enjoy being raped? Want another 'colorful' quote from Williams regarding woman - he said he would deal with Ms. Richards (his opponent in the race where the famous rape quote is from) the same way he’d deal with a cow on his ranch - “head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt.” I certainly feel the sexist statement of 'relax and enjoy it' is about as revolting as it comes.

Lets get to Linder, the most applicable since this deals with terrorism on a huge scale. The State Department declared the AUC (the Columbian group that Lindner's company funded) in 2001 as a terrorist organization, so you have at least one year that directly overlapped, and the State Department had listed them as 'questionable' since 1996. So, according to you Shag Besides, whether or not the tie means much, in the climate that is american politics, should be pretty clear that any potential... (your quote) the appearance is certainly very apparent here. And Chiquita has ADMITTED to ILLEGALLY funding this group - that is how it is illegal - they were indicted by the Justice Department (Doe v. Chiquita Brands) and fined $25,000,000. According to the Justice Department the senior executives reviewed and OK the money transfers and the senior executives (including Lindner) knew in 2000 (and perhaps earlier) that the AUC was a terrorist organization. Giving money to a terrorist organization is wrong - very wrong. Chiquita's fully owned shipping subsidiary Banadex actually bought 3,000 AK-47s and 4 million rounds of ammunition in 2001 (under Lindner's watch), and they smuggled it into Columbia for the AUC. Shag - the AUC are terrorists - they admitted that 70% of their financing came from cocaine, the remaining came from 'donations' from sponsors. The US State Department condemns it for massacres, torture, and other human rights abuses against civilians.

Chiquita admitted guilt in March of 2007, McCain accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by Linder in June of 2008.

Any claim that the argument is merely "guilt by association" is a strawman mischaracterization that only serves as a red herring. It is an extremely intellecually dishonest tactic. I would hope you can do better.

And if you think I am taking anything from Sowell (Townhall.com) as fact... hahaahahaha. Hopefully you would have laughed at me if I would have listed huffinton or DailyKos as one of my sources... There is nothing in your argument that shows anything other than guilt by association. Link me, show me the money trail, photos of Ayers and Obama pouring over plans to overthow the government - something concrete.

Some of my sources:
Sargeant - MSNBC, Washington Post, Miami Hearld.

Lindner - Time, U.S. Department of Justice, The U.S. Department of State

Williams - New York Times, Fox News, Reuters

And come on, speculation on Ayer's contribution to Obama's book - you should know better Shag...

 

[turborich]

I listen to a lot of AM radio, both the left & right. After listening to both views for years I came to one conclusion. Most democrats are wacky in their thinking. Not all but most. As far as Obama is concerned, He is just flat out sucks! He is a total joke as far as I am concerned. Wake up America!

 

[fossten]

Oh please. What BS. I dont like Bush but have never shouted at a rally either. And you call lefties idiots? Please. You better get over yourself and realize the righties are just as capable of being nuts.

Actually, it's a perfectly feasible scenario. You cannot deny that plants have been used at Presidential debates; why not at rallies?

Plant knows the media will report any language such as "kill him," so he inserts himself in the crowd and yells it. Voila! The media has news about the right wing wackos.

 

[Frogman]

Republicans here will be glad to hear that I swayed two people who were going to vote for the "messiah"... I mean, Obama. They are not crazy about voting for McCain either, but after I pointed them in the right direction (birth certificate, Potential illegal alien thing, Acorn, Ayers, etc), and had them do some homework, they are not voting for him.

I'm not pulling for McCain by any means. I think both are a bad choice. But sometimes, you have to chose the lesser of two evils.

 

[fossten]

Republicans here will be glad to hear that I swayed two people who were going to vote for the "messiah"... I mean, Obama. They are not crazy about voting for McCain either, but after I pointed them in the right direction (birth certificate, Potential illegal alien thing, Acorn, Ayers, etc), and had them do some homework, they are not voting for him.

I'm not pulling for McCain by any means. I think both are a bad choice. But sometimes, you have to chose the lesser of two evils.

Good work! Nice to hear.

 

[shagdrum]

And if you think I am taking anything from Sowell (Townhall.com) as fact... hahaahahaha. Hopefully you would have laughed at me if I would have listed huffinton or DailyKos as one of my sources... There is nothing in your argument that shows anything other than guilt by association. Link me, show me the money trail, photos of Ayers and Obama pouring over plans to overthow the government - something concrete.

Thomas Sowell has more credibility then the Huffington Post, the DailyKos or most any other left wing source you wanna cite. And you clearly didn't read the the Stanley Kurtz article either.

It is very easy to get away with raising the burden of proof when you can claim that a source is illegitimate simply because it has a bias. You are assuming ad hominem circumstancial reasoning to disengenuously ignore any source you don't like. Feel free to do that, but know that if you intentionally do so, it shows you to lack intellectual integrety.

And all the other stuff you cite (Sargeant, Lindner, Williams) is guilt by association and nothing more then a red herring. The argument against Obama here is much more then that and you know it, but I doubt you will admit that.

Since you seem unwilling to consider it, here it some other portions of Kurtz's article...

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.

The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.​

 

[TheDude]

So... Is McCain lying for cheap political reasons or are some of you guys wrong about Obama???





.

I think he's preparing for the future and taking the stance that used to be spouted in here by those on the right, ie "Always respect the Presidency!"

Then again, he probably knows Obama better than most, having done his homework and whatnot on his opponent, so he's just being honest.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag I read the Kurtz article - it is full of lies and innuendo, and very little credibility.

And just like you, Kurtz doesn't post one real document - we just need to take his word, that since he has 'seen' the documents we should believe him. Not one pdf of the supposed agenda that he has laid out, not one memo, not one take home brochure that states anything about some bizarre agenda that Ayers and Obama are pushing to create tiny terrorists in Chicago, and no doubt soon the world.

The CAC has opened all of its records to the public - and I am sure if there were collaboration the real evidence would have be smeared across the media - the fact that not one document appears is pretty telling in itself. These records have been available since August 22, 2008 - almost 2 months for intense scrutiny to come up with one real document. If Kurtz has spent days pouring over the material - where are the supporting documents? Since he first started to break this story weeks ago, he has yet to come up with one document - 2 whole months. Others have spent days as well looking into the same documents with nothing appearing.

This is all Fox had to report on it... And that was on August 28, 6 weeks ago, and nothing new... And Fox sent out a reporter to look into the documents.
The massive collection of newly released documents -- 140 boxes full of them -- includes agendas that clearly put Obama and Ayers in the same room for meetings of Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational initiative that Ayers was instrumental in starting and that Obama chaired in the 1990s.

Even the Clinton campaign tried to go down this road, and pulled back because they realized there wasn't anywhere to go with it.

The CAC site states that Ayers never received any compensation and doesn't list him as a founding member. There is nothing about Ayers on their site.

All you can give me on this whole 'alliance' argument is still just association, not one shred of hard evidence, so you have given me nothing but a red herring shag. A very old, smelly red herring.

And I don't quote Huffington or DailyKos - so I don't have to try to defend my sources shag. Maybe you should start looking into sources that you don't have to defend either - the whole 'defense of source' argument gets old, and detracts from the real issues.

 

[fossten]

Shag I read the Kurtz article - it is full of lies and innuendo, and very little credibility.

And just like you, Kurtz doesn't post one real document - we just need to take his word, that since he has 'seen' the documents we should believe him. Not one pdf of the supposed agenda that he has laid out, not one memo, not one take home brochure that states anything about some bizarre agenda that Ayers and Obama are pushing to create tiny terrorists in Chicago, and no doubt soon the world.

The CAC has opened all of its records to the public - and I am sure if there were collaboration the real evidence would have be smeared across the media - the fact that not one document appears is pretty telling in itself. These records have been available since August 22, 2008 - almost 2 months for intense scrutiny to come up with one real document. If Kurtz has spent days pouring over the material - where are the supporting documents? Since he first started to break this story weeks ago, he has yet to come up with one document - 2 whole months. Others have spent days as well looking into the same documents with nothing appearing.

Even the Clinton campaign tried to go down this road, and pulled back because they realized there wasn't anywhere to go with it.

The CAC site states that Ayers never received any compensation and doesn't list him as a founding member. There is nothing about Ayers on their site.

All you can give me on this whole 'alliance' argument is still just association, not one shred of hard evidence, so you have given me nothing but a red herring shag. A very old, smelly red herring.

And I don't quote Huffington or DailyKos - so I don't have to try to defend my sources shag. Maybe you should start looking into sources that you don't have to defend either - the whole 'defense of source' argument gets old, and detracts from the real issues.

How do you excuse the fact that Obama lied about his association with Ayers? His explanation was that Ayers was merely a guy in his neighborhood, whereas the relationship was clearly more than that.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag I read the Kurtz article - it is full of lies and innuendo, and very little credibility.

And what proof do you have that it is full of "lies and innuendo"? We are supposed to take the word of a Obama over Kurtz when Obama has been shown to lie about this very issues? You demand that Kurtz "provide documents, ect" is just another disengenuous attempt to raise the burden of proof. Considering that the article was an op-ed it is absurd to expect that he provide lengthy passages from direct sources. There are other places you can get that type of stuff.

It is rather clear that you are simple choosing to believe Obama's spin on this and then trying to find ways to justify ignoring any contradictory information.

You are also missing a big point in citing specifically Sowell and Kurtz as sources...
They are right wing sources and the arguement they are making is specifically not a guilt by association arguement. There are two direct source that prove that the arguement is not a guilt by association argument. You can argue weather the arguement is strong or not, but to try and claim that it is a guilt by association arguement when it is specifically and demonstratably shown to not be is exceedingly dishonest, and an obvious attempt to make their arguements fit into the template that is the strawman mischaracterization put out by the Obama campaign and echoed by the MSM.

And I don't quote Huffington or DailyKos - so I don't have to try to defend my sources shag. Maybe you should start looking into sources that you don't have to defend either - the whole 'defense of source' argument gets old, and detracts from the real issues.

You are the one making in that kind of a debate, by choosing to ignore sources that go against your position simply because they have a bias one way or the other. If that is your standard, then all news is subjective, because every source is going to have a bias one way or the other. It all becomes subjective, and there is no definate right.

Typical liberal arguement, when called on their biased agenda pushing, attempt to cloud the issue an make it seem that their is no objective truth, and that it is all subjective.

 

[fossten]

Typical liberal arguement, when called on their biased agenda pushing, attempt to cloud the issue an make it seem that their is no objective truth, and that it is all subjective.

It comes from the same postmodern thinking that says, "Well both sides do it."

 

[fossten]

I watched a video last night of a Palin rally where someone in the crowd cried out 'Lynch him'.

No doubt a good American though.

Sandra Bernhard calls for Palin to be gang raped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN6TDGOd3Y8
Where's your vaunted feminism now, fox?

Madonna goes nuts and threatens Palin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBAAW2e3Z08

From "Death of a President:"

Phillip Edgar Smith, left, and William Zachary Wolff were arrested after they threw custard cream pies at conservative author Ann Coulter during her speech at the University of Arizona in October 2004. Read the arrest report here. (Credit: Pima County Jail via The Smoking Gun.)

And let's not forget Obama telling his volunteers to knock doors and get in people's faces.

Well, I'm convinced.

Do you want to see more?

 

[foxpaws]

Where's your vaunted feminism now, fox?

Do you want to see more?

Well those are certainly extreme Foss. And my 'vaunted' feminism, have I bragged about being a feminist? Have I mentioned feminism, except maybe to laugh at myself, in any post? I try hard not to use that label - but, maybe I did at some point.

Bernhard didn't call for Palin to be gang raped - at least in this clip ( youtube.com/watch?v=CN6TDGOd3Y8 ) that you posted. She did call Palin a whore once, a bitch 3 times, and an "uncle woman" once, and was overall disgusting. I don't like Bernhard's humor, I find it abhorrent - I don't watch her. And the Madonna clip ( youtube.com/watch?v=ZBAAW2e3Z08 ) a bad political statement by an entertainer - "Get off my street - I will kick your ass". So stupid, so unnecessary.

And, of course I don't need to see more. Nor am I going to post the c%@p I get from by uber left friends, from Beck, O'Reilly, Toby Keith, others... although, to tell you the truth, I just ignore it, and don't even open it, it goes straight to the trash. And, I probably shouldn't have even posted the 'lynch' post - sorry - it was just so scary - to hear that in America again - the word 'lynch'. To go so backwards, I just thought it so sad.

Both sides can fire these cannon - I would rather not take part - sorry. I would rather not spread that type of truly hateful stuff. My prerogative is to live a life of my choosing - not exposing myself to that (from both sides) is something I chose. It might be living in a fantasy world according to others, but it is my world.

 

[foxpaws]

now back to earlier stuff...

Shag, (endearing terms deleted - I have been enjoying schnapps and hot chocolate at the football game ), you still haven't given me one shred of hard evidence. I am not trying to 'cloud the truth' just trying to discover it.

I have proof of innuendo - there has been to this point no supporting documents - if you just 'say' you saw the document and then don't supply same said documents - all you have is accusation without evidence, a malicious implication. That doesn't get you very far in any court.

Lies, unless you start to back those innuendos with fact, they morph into lies.

I am not choosing to believe Obama - what I am doing is waiting for Sowell/Kurtz's evidence. They made the charge - now they need to back the charge.

You should wait for the evidence too - and not just take 'anyone's' word on this.

Neither Kurtz or Sowell appear to have any documentation, their whole 'alliance' theory is flawed without creditable evidence. I don't care if it is right, left or in the middle, when all you have is theory, it remains that way until you prove your theory.

You know they could quickly squelch this by just handing over the evidence - the fact they haven't for weeks additionally weakens their creditability.

And what if I quoted Huffington or Kos - you would have hung me out to dry - rightfully so. I don't use controversial source, why do you continue to do so?

You are pushing your conservative agenda - I am pushing my liberal agenda neither of us is objective in that. Show me the money (once again endearing terms deleted... dang it), on this one shag.

And Foss - the worse thing Obama did in this whole thing is lie about it - how dumb of him. Yes, over a decade ago the two men crossed paths - they both sat on an education board within their community - probably because they were both hi-profile individuals in that community. As a rising candidate Obama took money from a fundraiser from Ayers, which Ayers presumably hosted because he was impressed with Obama's work within the CAC.

If Obama had admitted to those facts, I think this would have blown over, because, as of now, there looks like there isn't much beyond this. The lie has elevated it far more than natural discovery would have.

Ayers is a polarizing individual - But I don't think a 10+ year old association with him would have hurt Obama as much as the lies have. I understand the lie (don't be associated with a radical from the 60s), but I think it was s stupid one.

But, if anything, Ayer's isn't into postmodern thinking.

 

[fossten]

 

[shagdrum]

I see no reason to doubt Sowell's and Kurtz's credibility. However, Obama has lied about this very issue and is thus, less then credible on it.

Of course there hasn't been enough evidence to determine proof beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the standard you are effectively imposing), but in determining who will be the leader of the free world and commander in cheif, the precautionary principle applies and the level or proof is much lower then that; effectively at the preponderance of evidence level, which has more then been met.

Given that Kurtz and Sowell (among other's) are credible sources and that Obama has proven himself to not be, I see no reason to distrust what Kurtz and Sowell say. There are also plenty of other credible sources (that you would probably consider 'controversial') that say the same thing about Obama and Ayers as Kurtz and Sowell do.

The question comes down to where the burden of proof should be set. I have given you a rational, objective reason to set it where I do (precautionary principle). All you have so far offered is assertions that the evidence isn't enough. That you need the direct sources. Effectively you are trying to shift the burden of proof through mere assertion.

It really looks like you trying to find a reason to justify ignoring the truth here.

As to your claim of using "controversial sources"...why are sources from both sides controversial? Simply having a bias does not make a source controversial. The integrety, or lack thereof, of a source is what makes it controversial. Sources like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Sowell, Kurtz, etc. all have a bias but still show honesty and integrety when they present evidence. They do not have a habit of using underhanded rhetorical tactics like taking quotes out of context, mischaracterization and distortion, presenting half-truths or any other disengenuous tactics. However, many admitted left wing sources do; like Moveon.org, Media Matters, the Huffington Post, the DailyKos, etc. all do exhibit a pattern of using fallacious arguements and otherwise dishonest and underhanded arguing tactics. Even the MSM presents themselves as unbiased when it is exceedingly clear that they are biased, showing that their integrety and honesty is doubtful at best.

Unless you can give me more then just implied ad hominem circumstancial reasoning to not use right wing sources, I see no reason not to use them and will continue to site them.

Besides, if we are going to to with ad hominem circumstancal reasoning to justify sources, then you have to discount anything Obama and/or Ayers says about this as they in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position.

Also..."proof by innuendo"? Did you just make that one up? nice try...

Also, Kurtz didn't just "say" he saw the evidence. He had to go through a bit of a public battle to be able to even see the evidence and then after he was done perusing the evidence, there were Obama supporters (encouraged by the Obama campaign) attempting to intimidate him to keep him from getting the info out. I doubt he was allowed to take any of the documents with him, seeing as he had to go to Chicago to view them...

 

[foxpaws]

Foss - someone on this site posted the Hillary 'count' picture, I don't remember who - and, I really won't be drug down this path - do you know how many photos I could post where the are people who have shirts on declaring that Obama is an "uppity you-know what"

 

[Calabrio]

Foss - someone on this site posted the Hillary 'count' picture, I don't remember who - and, I really won't be drug down this path - do you know how many photos I could post where the are people who have shirts on declaring that Obama is an "uppity you-know what"

You're posting such a picture would only be relevant if you were about to make the argument that such a hateful sentiment was being reflected throughout the core of the party, or at least was a very public face of the movement.

This doesn't apply.

Its similar to how Republicans have to be careful when putting lawn signs or bumper stickers on the their cars, the fear of liberal vandalism is extremely real. It's very common.

Now demonstrating one or two lunatics who have done similarly bad behavior does not mean that the trend shouldn't be associated with the tactics of the left wing.

 

[foxpaws]

Way beyond reasonable doubt as you state shag - as far as I can see it is all hearsay. "Believe me I saw these papers, oh and by the way it was hard to see these papers". I just ask for reasonable proof, hearsay is not proof at all, for anyone. He could have easily scanned them with a hand scanner - lots of reporters do that.

I am not ignoring the truth, but trying to find it. You take their word for it - why? Stand back, look at it rationally, you would in every case ask for collaboration.

I looked at Stanley Kurtz's other articles. A lot of articles against gays and gay marriage, a couple of really interesting articles about how bad working moms are to the well being of their children. And of course a lot of work about Obama. He really isn't a reporter but a columnist. He almost always writes opinion and editorial.

So, why doesn't he have proof? He is a journalist, he knows the rules - show proof. Show that integrity and honesty, just show proof.

You use right wing sources, as far as I can see, almost exclusively Shag. Why? Why use sources that you always end up having to defend (and not only just to me). I hate having to go through the discredit source argument. I really do want to know why you use so much right wing source. As you have seen in the past I can do a darn good job of discrediting it, but it takes time especially when I don't throw left wing source at you. I want to debate fairly. A good debater knows how important non-biased source is. Once again, you blanket discredit all left wing sources, while demand that I individually discredit right wing sources. Let's just discredit them all - and debate fairly. I can do that - can you?

So, discount both sides and we are back to just show me the evidence where Obama and Ayers conspired against America. Where is that other reporter that will step up? There have been a lot at the Daly Library lately - and I haven't seen any back-up to Kurtz.

I agree about the lying part - didn't you read the part at the bottom of the post? A dumb thing for Obama to do. I won't go down the road that it is something they 'all' do. He did it, it was wrong, he needs to own up to the mistake, tell the world the truth.

 

[foxpaws]

You're posting such a picture would only be relevant if you were about to make the argument that such a hateful sentiment was being reflected throughout the core of the party, or at least was a very public face of the movement.

This doesn't apply.

Its similar to how Republicans have to be careful when putting lawn signs or bumper stickers on the their cars, the fear of liberal vandalism is extremely real. It's very common.

Now demonstrating one or two lunatics who have done similarly bad behavior does not mean that the trend shouldn't be associated with the tactics of the left wing.

Thanks Calabrio - of course the photos and examples that Foss posts aren't representive of the 'core' of the Democrat party, and I am sure Foss doesn't think so either. I am the core - my family is the core - the people I work with at campaign headquarters are the core. The people I met at the DNC are the core. All good, basic Americans, not radical. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they worry about their kids, they go to church. Just like they do on the Right. Both sides have radicals. That is why I won't even spread the hate, it doesn't represent the 99.99% majority of what Republicans stand for.

My Obama signs have been stolen 10 times. I have given up putting them out. I have an Obama button on my purse - and I was called a 'Obama bitch' by a complete stranger in a restaurant when he saw my button. I know that man wasn't what the Republican party stands for, but both sides have their problems, and I think it will only get worse. This is becoming such a polarizing election.

 

[Calabrio]

Thanks Calabrio - of course the photos and examples that Foss posts aren't representive of the 'core' of the Democrat party, and I am sure Foss doesn't think so either. I am the core - my family is the core - the people I work with at campaign headquarters are the core. The people I met at the DNC are the core. All good, basic Americans, not radical. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they worry about their kids, they go to church. Just like they do on the Right. Both sides have radicals. That is why I won't even spread the hate, it doesn't represent the 99.99% majority of what Republicans stand for.

And that's the difference.
Those people have become the core of the Demcorat Party.
They are the constituents of the Speaker of the House. They are the Daily Kos/Democrat Underground voters who have taken over the party. They control the fundraising, they control the agenda.

Just because you find one racist nut somewhere who doesn't like Obama, you haven't provided an example of anything. Frankly, that could have been a Hillary supporter just as easily as a McCain one.

My Obama signs have been stolen 10 times. I have given up putting them out. I have an Obama button on my purse - and I was called a 'Obama bitch' by a complete stranger in a restaurant when he saw my button. I know that man wasn't what the Republican party stands for, but both sides have their problems, and I think it will only get worse. This is becoming such a polarizing election.

You're Obama sign was probably stolen by other Obama supporters too lazy to get one of their own, or too cheap to buy one.

And you've heard ONE mean comment in a restaurant (again, could have been an upset Hillary person).

You're attempt to equate the isolated or trivial instances you've experienced to the examples conservatives can give proves me point.

Let me ask you this, are you worried that someone might key the word NAZI into your car if you put an Obama sticker on it? Or just slash the tires? Because EVERYONE here who supports McCain but lives in a "blue state" has that concern.

I'm in NY and I have to decide whether I put some McCain signs infront of my house.... if I do so, I know full well that the likelihood of my cars or house being vandalized is distinctly high.

Did you watch this.... People just quietly walking in a parade with McCain/Palin signs through Manhattan.
YouTube - Liberal Outrage: A Pro-McCain March In Manhattan

 

[shagdrum]

Why do I cite right wing sources? Because I see no reason not to. You say you are good at discrediting them, then do it. I have given you the standard with which I use (integrety and thus credibility as demonstrated by the type of arguments made and rhetorical tactics used).

By that standard a disturbingly large portion of left wing sources are proven to be...less then credible. It isn't too hard to defend the "right wing sources" I use when most all the attacks against them are fallacious in some fashion. Continued attempts to fallaciously discredit those sources only put egg on the face of the person attacking the source and show them to have very little intellectual integrety (if any at all).

All I see here are assertions that they are not credible due to their bias. That is patently absurd and a blatantly fallacious argument that you keep making despite knowing it is a fallacious argument. That doesn't speak well for your intellecual integrety.

Keep in mind that, "The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material." and as this article points out, Kurtz did not have access to the records as of August 18th. He most likely didn't gain access to these records until at least late August, if not early September. He published the article being discussed on September 23rd. It is unclear weather he had even completed fully reviewing the records in question when he wrote the article.

Kurtz article published on September 23rd were his initial findings. Has he had time to write more extensively on it showing direct quotations; basically a book or lengthy academic paper? I think it is clear that he hasn't and probably won't until after the election. But even when he does, I assume you will demand to see the actual documents, further shifting the burden of proof.

Kurtz also published this article expanding on his findings from the records and reported on in the WSJ article.

Here is the definition of hearsay according to the Federal Rules of Evidence:

[a]statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted​

So of course what Kurtz has said is hearsay, he is not under oath at a trial or hearing! Anyone's statements would be considered hearsay; Obama, Ayers, anyone, unless they were under oath. This is nothing more then a red herring...

FWI; Kurtz and his findings on gay marriage are discussed ad nausseum toward the end of this thread. I really don't wanna rehash stuff that was already discussed in regards to Kurtz there...

 

[MonsterMark]

Calabrio,

Thanks for posting that video.

Completely changes my mind what I think of New Yorkers in general.

 

[foxpaws]

Calabrio,

I believe if someone called your wife a “McCain bitch” you probably would be all over that.

Thank you for belittling me personally. I no doubt deserved the epitaph.

I believe the core of the Republican Party is the Christian Coalition. That is what you are saying about the Left – you believe that the ‘core’ are the very few that scream the loudest.

It isn’t.

Just as I really don’t believe the core of the Republican Party is the Christian Coalition.

I am worried that my car (which does have an Obama sticker on it) will be vandalized one day with the word ‘communist’ scratched into it.

I think that most Democrats worry about that. I know people who have started to remove their bumper stickers because of that. And I live in a purple state.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, At this point, I need to ask “What’s in it for me?”

I can continue to discredit your sources, one by one. But, at this point, I need to get something in return.

You chose.

You can either start debating correctly – and use only unbiased sources (I already follow this rule).

Or

I get to inject moderate left wing sources that you have to discredit one by one.

Kurtz isn’t the boy you want to hang your hat on in this instance.

By my standard a large portion of both left and right wing sources are proven to be ‘less than creditable.’

I remove my sources that may even appear to have creditability issues, I ask you to do the same. Otherwise I will start to inject them and demand the same instance by instance discredit from you.

I know that Kurtz says the CAC records are intensive – he keeps spewing that fact. If they are so intensive, where is just one piece of tangible proof?

Guess what, I’ll send a friend of mine in Chicago to the Daly library to see the boxes. And they can come back and say they saw the papers, and you know, there wasn’t anything in there that linked Ayers and Obama other than they attended some meetings together. They can even come back with a scan of one of the documents to prove it.

Kurtz first article on this could have been printed last week. It doesn’t matter, he never presents hard evidence. I don’t ask for a dissertation on the matter. He had 1 month from the time he viewed the material to the time he wrote the article. Journalistic integrity demands that he show us his source material.

And hearsay is relevant in this case – if you publish an article, and don’t back it with material, you have mislead me. Unlike a court of law where that same hearsay would be thrown out and ignored, in the court of public opinion it just sits there, festering, until it fades away, like many lies, but not until it has done a huge amount of damage.

So, which one is it Shag? I cannot continue to discredit each and every one of your sources without quid pro quo (ahhhh latin, just sends chills up and down my spine… ohhhhh) or in the best of all possible worlds, lets just throw out the left and right, and really debate on merit.