The Road to the White House

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

Considering Townhall and Newsmax are the two "media" outlets going after this, well, I think that answers itself.

 

It certainly is revealing regarding the limitations that our entire media sets in regard to exposing Obama's character issues.

[Ned Ryerson 94]

[Ned Ryerson 94]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-...of-pal_n_138606.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/john-mccain...ist-co_b_133326.html

 

What a questionable character!!!

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

Considering Townhall and Newsmax are the two "media" outlets going after this, well, I think that answers itself.

 

It certainly is revealing regarding the limitations that our entire media sets in regard to exposing Obama's character issues.

 

It's really disappointing to me that the the majority of the "liberal media" chooses not to participate in smear campaigns. How dare they report on things that matter.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

These aren't periphery associations as you intimate. These people have had closer relationships with Obama than will ever truly be exposed.

 

The problem I have with this statement is that it has the same provability as my saying "I have an invisible, intangible friend named Ron. The only thing keeping him from killing you is that I told him not to." There's no way you can prove Ron isn't real, therefore no matter how ludicrous the premise, you can't *really* say you know for fact I'm lying.

 

Similarly, with a statement like: "The full truth won't ever come out", you can simply argue that more exists that hasn't been exposed, no matter what the story actually is. It's a way of putting the burden on proof on the non-believer, a function that's actually impossible and incredibly backwards. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. It's the whole innocent until proven guilty idea. So far the only thing Obama's actually been proven to be guilty of was knowing a few people who are, to varying degrees, questionable characters. Is that a problem? Sure. Is it on some level something that will impact my vote? Sure. But on a scale of 1 to infinity, I'd rate it around a 4. The reality is I'd put "knew Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko" as being on par with "Cheated on his crippled wife". I honestly don't care about either, since neither has anything to do with governing a country. If Obama or McCain want to appoint new cabinet positions called "Secretary of extra-marital affairs" and "Secretary of Questionable associations", I'm happy to support them providing that they're doing an effective job of governing.

[Ned Ryerson 94]

I also find it interesting that the source that continues to drive the news cycle is Matt Drudge, a proud conservative. However, fortunately he seems to be losing is grip these days. Over the top partisan desperation.

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-...of-pal_n_138606.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/john-mccain...ist-co_b_133326.html

 

What a questionable character!!!

 

Funny. I received this exact article from three freinds in response to my email questioning Obama's ties to Al Mansour. Are you on my email list? If not, at least you libs are all on the same page.

 

My response:

Cold war policies/tactics from 30 years ago don't compare to today's political atmosphere.

Both candidates should be required to explain their affiliations. Obama's list, more recently compiled and expanded upon, would take much longer to explain however.

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The problem I have with this statement is that it has the same provability as my saying "I have an invisible, intangible friend named Ron. The only thing keeping him from killing you is that I told him not to." There's no way you can prove Ron isn't real, therefore no matter how ludicrous the premise, you can't *really* say you know for fact I'm lying.

 

Do you realize that all of your arguements rely upon the same premise, that you can make up something so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable in contrast to the point being made, that you hope it will render any honest attempt at discussion equally impossible and moot?

[Ned Ryerson 94]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The problem I have with this statement is that it has the same provability as my saying "I have an invisible, intangible friend named Ron. The only thing keeping him from killing you is that I told him not to." There's no way you can prove Ron isn't real, therefore no matter how ludicrous the premise, you can't *really* say you know for fact I'm lying.

 

Do you realize that all of your arguements rely upon the same premise, that you can make up something so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable in contrast to the point being made, that you hope it will render any honest attempt at discussion equally impossible and moot?

 

quote:

"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth

concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need-- the homeless guy outside.

 

The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did

not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved the money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application and you can't swallow it when it's your money that is being redistributed."

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by WPMagic:

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The problem I have with this statement is that it has the same provability as my saying "I have an invisible, intangible friend named Ron. The only thing keeping him from killing you is that I told him not to." There's no way you can prove Ron isn't real, therefore no matter how ludicrous the premise, you can't *really* say you know for fact I'm lying.

 

Do you realize that all of your arguements rely upon the same premise, that you can make up something so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable in contrast to the point being made, that you hope it will render any honest attempt at discussion equally impossible and moot?

 

quote:

"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

 

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth

concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need-- the homeless guy outside.

 

The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

 

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did

not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved the money more.

 

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application and you can't swallow it when it's your money that is being redistributed."

 

What's the point of this?

[Ned Ryerson 94]

Your quoted story that is "utterly ridiculous and unbelievable in contrast to the point being made" and how it equally "render any honest attempt at discussion equally impossible and moot."

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

quote:

Originally posted by SmackDaddy:

quote:

Originally posted by Drunk on Mystery:

The problem I have with this statement is that it has the same provability as my saying "I have an invisible, intangible friend named Ron. The only thing keeping him from killing you is that I told him not to." There's no way you can prove Ron isn't real, therefore no matter how ludicrous the premise, you can't *really* say you know for fact I'm lying.

 

Do you realize that all of your arguements rely upon the same premise, that you can make up something so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable in contrast to the point being made, that you hope it will render any honest attempt at discussion equally impossible and moot?

 

I don't understand why everything you bring up is legitimate and "an honest attempt at discussion" but whenever anyone refutes it you dismiss it as nonsense and imply that no one else here knows as much as you do and therefore their opinions are invalid.

 

Then you go and complain a couple of pages back that people are somehow disrespecting your right to your own opinion.

 

Amazing.