I, for one, would like to hear your response to this, magellan01. It’s a bit of a tu quoque, but what the hell.
Thoughts?
Obama being followed around by a foreign politician equates to a double secret endorsement by Obama. It’s kinda like having friend who is black makes you not a racist, even if that black person doesn’t know anything more about you than your name.
The awful part of all this is that the people who are running against Obama and who run this country now think this way. In short, they are amazingly stupid and uneducated.
Character of a typical Republican in 2008:
If the facts don’t support your candidate–or worse if they support the opponent–it means the facts are biased. These days, I’m hearing Republicans even saying factcheck.org and Snopes are biased. Remember recently when some conservative group made a counterpart to wikipedia because of its so-called bias?
magellan01 seem to be clinging to the Washington Times “story” at all costs, even those its thin tissues are in tatters all around him.
This attempted criticism of Obama via his "associates"is embarrassing for its transparency and pathetic lack of merit. Clearly if a campaign resorts to such cheap and easily refuted shots, it is getting desperate.
magellan01, you do seem like a fairly intelligent guy overall. I’d like to encourage you to let go of partisanship just a tad, and allow yourself to look at facts with some measure of objectivity. You don’t have to change your basic assumptions and values, just be fair in evaluating information. Defending the WT isn’t making you look too good.
Well, that doesn’t sound right. When it first came out Obama claimed he was just a guy he knew in the neighborhood. No mention of the kick-off in his living room. No mention about being hired to distribute the dough from the charity…Just a guy…:rolleyes:
And I have no doubt that some of McCain’s claims have gone over the line. So have Obama’s. But the one about Ayers has merit and ain’t going away.
You’re right, it’s completely unrelated. But since you acknowledge it is a tu quoque and immaterial to the OP, I’'l play. First, tell me 1) when the meeting occurred and 2) what is meant by “palling around”.
Considering that the latest polls are showing that that attack tactic is not effective, I’m happy to agree on disagreeing.
Great. You can print it out and keep it under your pillow.
Ahh, common ground. Now we are brethren. Peace.
I’m fully aware of the low esteem the WT is held by most posters here. Just one item on a long, long list of things I disagree with them on.
And if they, or anyone, are as credible as the Swift Boat Vets, that is a compliment. Whoops, one more thing on that long list.
I may have missed it; what* is* the pattern that it shows?
If that was the extent of it, I might tend to agree with you. But there seems to be more to it than that. For now, I’ll go with the author’s version.
:rolleyes: If it makes you feel better to believe that, sure, whatever you say.
So you’re proud about believing stupid things? This site is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, yet you seem to be honestly suggesting that embracing it is laudable.
Do you actually find the swift boat vets credible or are you just trying to get a rise out of people?
No need to, it seems that you are now saying that something called a “link” is not possible. 
However, as I see, many have come to point out already how silly is your reliance in the WT and the Sinclair group. Knowing their background, what they are doing is character assassination by former assassins, their former and current underhanded efforts against Democratic candidates automatically makes any effort to prop them up in this thread a sorry and spectacular pathetic effort that cannot be hidden in this thread or under a pillow. Your sorry efforts will remain here for all to see in the future.
The only Kenyan who seems to believe that Obama even accidentally endorsed Odinga is Corsi, and he’s not Kenyan.
The OP has been given the Obi Wan treatment and any cites that suggests his OP is wrong are simply not the cites he is looking for and he doesn’t seem to see them.
Remarkable.
Maybe you should do just a little bit of reading on those Swift Boaters, especially note who one of the first people to denounce them was (John McCain) and that some of them have come out and flat-out said they were lying.
But if you seriously believe 9/11 deniers are trustworthy then there’s pretty much no reasoning with you.
I forcefully disagree. The problem is that those on the left seek defend Obama by asking for a burden of proof that is inappropriate. This is not a scientific exercise, or a court of law. The burden is not hard proof beyond any doubt. You can say that that should be the case, but that’s now we all—you included—form the vast number of our opinions. In the end it’s a simple “is it likely that”. That’s the truth of it. Any criticism of Bush (who I am not a fan of) easily falls into this category. But when the tables are turned, bring out the microscope, slide rule, judge and jury.
I’m actually think myself to be quite objective. I have people here who I expect to disagree with telling me that they don’t respect the WT. I have seen noting to change my mind. The fact that it is owned by Moon doesn’t register, as I don’t know what to expect from a newspaper owned by him. I read articles from the WP, the WSJ, the NYT, and think they all have merit. As does the WT Should I change my opinion of it just because others think I should? Because they are of another opinion? would that demonstrate objective thinking?
That’s what you got from what I wrote? If so, I think some introspection is in order.
Very credible. And wonderful Americans. For both the service they performed wearing the uniform and stripping the misplaced badge of honor from the dishonorable piece of shit that goes by the name of John F. Kerry. Four years ago or so I read both *The New Solider *and Unfit for Command, as well as many articles on the subject. I came down on the side of John O’Neill. Strongly.
But this thread is not about Kerry and I will not participate in a hijack that would seek to make it so.
My teeth are all achatter.
Of course not, but everyone can see how sorry you are on being objective when you refused to even check on my first post that the Media Matters link cited other newspapers that investigated the issue.
Then anyone being objective could see the basis for the article was poppycock, only then is that the point of “considering the source” then is mentioned. If you are proud of ignoring even your own advice then there is nothing else to be said.
Another unpleasant McCain smear