Amazingly, I can disagree with the candidate I will vote for and not think him infallible. Such is one of the benefits of not voting for a demigod. again, I’ve weighed the available evidence from both sides and have formed the conclusion I am comfortable with. And no, I am not and have never been a Bush supporter. And before Kerry started to run and the man beneath the facade was revealed, I actually kinda liked him.
But THAT will be the end to my Kerry discussion.
I don’t think 9/11 deniers are necessarily untrustworthy. I think they’re 100% flat-out wrong, and maybe even a bit deluded about the issue. But I don’t think they’re lying about what they believe.
Since the Sinclair broadcasting company gave a voice to those liars, and the fact that the only available source of the article was clearly the writer for the Swiftboaters, the relation is relevant as to judge past and current efforts as their efforts clearly were and remain partisan.
No, it’s not about Kerry. It’s about your inability to think critically. You seem to believe what you want to believe regardless of the credibility of the source. That is a failing, not a strength.
And as an aside, Kerry is a thousand times the hero McCain is.
You forget that I hold the WT to be credible. You don’t? Fine.
II guarantee you that I find this claim to be a thousand times more ridiculous as you find mine making the opposite point. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
It shows the type of people he is drawn to. Alinsky. Ayers. Wright. And now Odinga (which, based on some issues brought up earlier in the thread, I would like to look into more). Dr. Khalid al-Mansour(?) These people are very radical leftists. I don’t throw Rezko in with them as I think that was a failing of the ordinary “hey, free money variety” which they pretty much all are guilty of to some degree.
Admitting that you (still) ignore a cite and at the same time you are demanding that we consider your own objectivity in the matter is enough evidence for all to see how phony that objectivity is.
The WT is not a good source of information, but this point was not brought by me until proper (yes it was) cites were found to discredit the article in the OP.
Once again, no evidence of Obama following their footsteps, only baseless inferences. BTW that cite of mine on McCain putting his money on illegal contra members that you so objectively ignored also is more damming than anything you have produced so far.
As you are once again showing ignorance, it is necessary to point out that no cites for the points in the article have been mentioned, Corsi remains the most likely source of the points mentioned in the article in the OP, and even when Corsi is not mentioned, the same items mentioned in the article were declared **false **by more serious newspapers that investigated the allegations.
Wright is a radical leftist? Granted I didn’t follow that particular story all that much, but i’m not sure about that particular one.
The problem I see with this is that I think it’s not seeing the wood for the trees. The association Obama had with Ayers, for example, hosting a support event and working on a board, are ones that he presumably had with many people. What are the political leanings of the other people on that board? What are the political leanings of the people who hosted an event to help Obama? Was Alinksy his only influence early in his career? To suggest that these people show a pattern would require that we know all of these things. It seems to me that to say there’s a pattern based on knowledge of just some of the people he knows - moreover, to say that he is drawn to a people of a certain leaning without also knowing the leaning of all the other people in that position - seems shortsighted. After all, I could show a person who’ve never read the board times you’ve agreed with me or other lefty types, and they might think there’s a pattern there; we need to know not just those but all the lefties you disagree with, plus the times when you disagree overall, to build up a true pattern.
Straw man. I never said that he was going to follow in their footsteps. I don’t believe he will. I fear he will be much more subtle, but work in a socialist direction. And his current tax plan is proof of that. Heck, just recently he justified a higher tax rate to those making more the $250k but admitting that he wanted to, to paraphrase, “spread the wealth around”.
if you can point to an exact claim made in the article that Corsi made, then we can go evaluate that rebuttal. Otherwise, I’ll just say again, the OP has nothing to do with Corsi.
More information is always better. But we’re often asked to make estimations on a limited amount. But you raise good points. As it turns out, as a young man, he was first infatuated with the writings of Malcolm X. Wright is a wingnut black liberation theologist, so extreme that Obama finally had to publicly sever ties with him and leave the church. It is a fact that his Illinois Senate career was launched in Ayers living room, and that he served on a Board with him. But there are other ties as well. There’s ACORN. And the fact that he had asked ex-Fannie Mae CEO, Franklin Raines to act as an advisor to him. And that fact that although he has been in the Senate a very short time, his contributions from Freddie and Fannie rank him Number 3 in the whole Senate. That’s really quite an amazing statistic in itself. I think that if there were any one or two of these, it wouldn’t merit such concern. But the facts are what they are.
It is not a straw man, the fact that you are not mentioning what should be the objective evidence on what the result of meeting those people is telling. (Since he is obviously not following their footsteps there is clear evidence that this line of attack is pure poppycock.)
If you are admitting that there is noting now but subtle influence even that requires more evidence. Saying that “spread the wealth around” is socialist when that was even mentioned during the new deal era. Spreading the wealth does not remove private property or differentiation. Distribution is not the same as socialism.
The main point of the article was to show that Obama was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.
The fact check for the Saint Petersburg Times:
As I mentioned, and you have once again demonstrated your objectivity is pathetic, removing Corsi from the line still shows that the more serious paper found public statements from Obama not supporting Odinga, conclusion: the main point in the article in the OP is a stinky lie. And until a cite is produced, it is a safe assumption that Corsi is the source misleading the reporter.
I’m not sure i’d consider black liberation theology to be a radical leftist position. Perhaps that’s just me.
But from who else’s living room was it launched? Who else served on that board with him? You’ve claimed that Ayers (among others) is the type of person to whom Obama is drawn - but how can we know that without knowing who else he’s associated with? If all those other board members are Ayers-a-likes, you’d have a stronger pattern. If they were all arch-conservatives, it’d entirely spoil your argument. I suspect that they were probably somewhere towards the moderate centre on either side - but if we accept that this knowledge is something which could potentially significantly strengthen or weaken your argument, then to not know it is clearly a problem. Moreover, there may be a pattern that has yet gone unrevealed; you seen radical leftiness as the link which connects all these people, but what if they share some other link which is the reason Obama chose to associate with them for? That they all share something in your eyes does not mean that is the thing Obama valued them for; correlation doesn’t imply causation, and even more so when the correlation only takes some people into account.
Yes, but we don’t know all of them. Like I said, I could search the board and provide a list of times you’ve agreed with lefties, but without knowing other details it would be silly to conclude you yourself are a lefty. An argument could be made that your reasonable response to my post as opposed to more mocking responses of others in this thread betrays a liking for the yet more liberal British viewpoints over American ones; when the link instead may be a response to the tone in the posts addressed to you.
I guess my overall point would be that we more information is needed before we start talking about patterns and links. I have no problem with disagreeing with anyone based on the individual people or causes they’ve supported; but if there appears to be a pattern, especially a pattern that is worrying, especially a pattern that relies on information we don’t know, I would think it’s only wise to find and demand that other information before we come to a conclusion.
I invite the OP to come express his outrage at McCain’s close and ongoing relationship with a lobbyist so corrupt he was a front man for Saddam Hussein, here.
Actually, I would not attribute this particular silliness to McCain.
magellan01 has decided to accept Corsi as some sort of beacon of truth, first gullibly swallowing his lies about John Kerry in his co-authored Unfit for Command and now his dishonest hatchet job on Obama. However, I have not seen any evidence that Corsi is actually working for the McCain team. He appears to be his own loose cannon. I’m sure that McCain is quite happy to accept any collateral help that Corsi provides by poisoning the discussion, but I do not think it is fair to claim that McCain is behind the smears. Corsi was writing lies about Obama months before McCain hired Rove’s old henchmen to run his campaign.