Well gentle readers, I must say that I am greatly disappointed. I put up the challenge to Obama supporters to visit www.AmericanThinker.com to peruse a few of the many opinion pieces about Barak Obama and then pick one to defend him against the author of the chosen piece. No one picked up the gauntlet. Sure, I know I don't have that many readers. But I was certain that at least one of the lefties who visit had spine enough to step up to the plate. I mean they're all blog readers/hosts, so it's not like they aren't wasting time anyway. The only thing I can take away from this sorry result is that what has been suspected is actually true: Obama is undefensible, and his supporters are afraid to learn who he really is.
This is typical of the left. As we learned during the Bill Clinton campaigns, it's never about character in selecting a president. I mean I get Hashfanatic visiting and using terms like "the Bush crime family" (I always get a chuckle when this guy posts his goofy comments---thanks Hash), but there is never anything to back up such assertions. In the meantime, Barry has numerous questionable alliances, and yet, he gets incredible support from among the left. This tends to support Michael Savage's assertion of liberalism being a mental disease. How could anyone support a guy like Obama with the track record he has? It boggles the mind, and apparently it boggles the minds of the lefties if they can't state why they want to vote for him. Time for a change? (We hear this every election cycle) Change to what? They have no idea. The right has a far better idea of what that change will look like than do Obama supporters.
What Obama is, is any guy off the street, as in, they'll take any guy off the street and make him president. He's got nothing in terms of experience, smarts, ideas or the character to be our next president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Here's a suggestion - why don't you go select an Obama article from American Thinker, provide the link, and see if that gets you any takers. You gotta nail it down, Art. Provide the topic of discussion, because THIS is your blog - not American Thinker. As for me, I don't go out of my way to defend candidates for the Democratic party's presidential nomination for the sake of argument alone. There has to be some sort of motivation to mix it up. Like our argument over Kerry's military service, for example.
Again, "Marshall Art's" is your stump, so you have to provide the speech. I'm guessing that'll get you a response.
What are you talking about?
I regard Obama (and his followers) to be the single greatest threat to American safety and security.
Why would I need the "American Thinker" to convince me of what should be plain as the nose on anyone's face?
If possible, I'll vote for Hillary. If not, I'll either sit home or vote McCain, lumps and all.
Here's another suggestion--why don't you select one of the articles, research the evidence on both sides of the question for yourself, and then write your own post on the topic. That might lead to an interesting debate.
What "challenge"? Don't suppose that just because we may read you occasionally that we are hanging on your every word.
As to the nature of the "challenge," I don't see how it's a very worthwhile challenge.
At a glance, I went over to AmThinker and found this article. It's a short little blurb complaining about two misstatements Obama supposedly made.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, are we going to jump on candidates for poorly phrased statements and misstatements? Really?
Because, if that's all it takes to disqualify a candidate in your mind, then George W should have dropped out before he started and has raised the art of Misstatement to the level of impeachable offenses.
Is that the POV you're going to stick with?
As to the nature of the story itself, he cites a Lexington Herald story that I've never heard of. I can't find an original source for it online anywhere, just other sources citing the story. Short of any validation, this sounds like Wing Nut Daily level of "journalism."
By the way, on an earlier comment you made over at Eric's place, I responded with a correction of your error. I challenge you to deal with your own misstatements before meeting any other challenges from you.
You made yet another comment about Obama not having demonstrated having a plan for what he wants to do. I pointed out that his website goes in to much more real detail than McCain does on what problems are out there and what he'd do to deal with them.
I ended up posting a version of that response on my blog, if you want to read the more detailed response.
And this is rich:
What Obama is, is any guy off the street, as in, they'll take any guy off the street and make him president. He's got nothing in terms of experience, smarts, ideas or the character to be our next president.
coming from a guy that would vote for Bush again today??? You MUST be kidding!
Irony. Look it up.
Well boys and girls, as it IS my blog, I threw down in exactly the manner I wanted to. There are just so many articles at AmThink that to choose one specifically would be superfluous since I know the dude's a wasted vote no matter which angle one views it. That is why I decided to let y'all choose which article to whine about since it ain't me who thinks Barry's the cats.
Now, I don't know, beyond Dan or ER, who else digs Barry. (Hash--I didn't say you did--I only suggested you post goofy comments--reread the post) Secondly, I think I've made it plain that I don't have a dog in this hunt so to suggest I defend McCain is a lame retort as well as an easy task; he just doesn't suck as much as Hill or Barry.
Vinny,
I would really prefer to simply request an explanation from an Obama supporter as to why anyone should support him, but the typical response is as empty and ambiguous as anything Obama says in anyone of his speeches. So, instead, I decided to offer up whatever AmThink article that most riles and see how the supporter defends. Sort of like an open line Friday that so many radio talk show hosts offer, except that it would focus on Barry Obamanable.
Dan,
I know you don't hang on my every word. That's evident in how poorly you absorb the plain English of my comments. SOOO many times (as Frank Gifford used to say) I've had to restate my postion in order for you to understand. And by the way, you insist on asking for clarification at your blog, but you jump to incredibly inaccurate conclusions here with the very tone you chastise at yours. Do unto others, bro.
Also, Dan, it ain't very ballsy for you to pick such an insignificant article, particularly if you think the point of it was itself insignificant. But really Dan, the left takes great delight in mocking George's pronounciation of "nuclear", so don't get your undies in a twist when the same game is played on your guy. Don't forget also the crap Dan Quayle took for the potato incident. What goes around...
Another thing occurs to me, Dan. You've made cracks about Bush hiring of certain people for various positions that prove to you his wickedness and incompetence. I refer to oil company guys being on oversight committees or whatever else it was that bothered you. But we see the type of low lifes with whom Barry associates and not a peep from you. What was the word? Irony?
And yeah, with what little he's done in life, Barry is just any guy off the street. Bush's speech to the Israelis shows he has a far better grasp of the calibur of scum that is causing all the bloodshed and heartache in the Middle East. Just today there was a report of Abbas insisting the George put pressure on the Israelis to do more for peace. This is the kind of asshole that Barry thinks he can convince to change their ways. To be fair, Bush, like most American politicians, also pretends there's a path to peace between the Israelis and Pallies, but he's not stupid enough to believe that supporting or talking with Hamas is a part of it.
So folks. I guess I can assume the challenge is a bust. No one has the stones to spend time at a conservative site to see what is being said of Barry. I hereby release all lefties of the challenge and I guess I must assume that it is only the superficial speech that convinces the Obama supporters instead of substance and track records. No surprise there.
Bush's speech to the Israelis shows he has a far better grasp of the calibur of scum that is causing all the bloodshed and heartache in the Middle East.
Stop it, yer killing me.
Phew. Let me catch my breath here...
Okay, as to this:
I guess I can assume the challenge is a bust. No one has the stones to spend time at a conservative site to see what is being said of Barry..
Your challenge was to choose an article - ANY article - and defend Obama from the writer's supposed razor edge reasoning. I did just what you suggested. I went to the first article that caught my eye.
Later, I went back and read about three or four more of these articles. I have yet to find an article with enough content to bother trying to "defend" Obama.
Brother, if you say go and choose any article, this is what's going to happen - especially when at least the first however many are as lame as the ones I read.
Feel free to point to an article that has some actual content and is not just whining "i don't like him..." and we can consider such an effort a challenge.
As it is, you had me shooting fish in a barrel.
And feel free to point out WHERE I've misrepresented your position instead of just lobbing a turd of an accusation. IF there is such a place (and it happens, I'm entirely human that way) what you'll see is an apology from me, as I have done before when I've made a mistake.
Which is more than I can ever recall having from you no matter how MANY, many, many times you've misrepresented my position.
The difference seems to be either that I'm not intending to misrepresent and will gladly make a correction when pointed out and that's not true for you OR perhaps that you're too proud to ever admit to making a mistake and prefer to think that you know better than I do what I think and mean. Or maybe something else, those are just the first two guesses that come to my head.
but we see the type of low lifes with whom Barry associates and not a peep from you.
?
Really? We do? For instance...?
It might be interesting to discuss one of the articles from the American Thinker if I thought you really had command of the facts underlying the article, but unfortunately, you seem much too willing to believe everything you hear from right wing hacks on the radio like Sandy Rios and Michael Medved. I may be a liberal, but I subscribe to the Economist and The Wall Street Journal and I read history so I can be sure that the facts I am relying on are really facts.
Vinny,
Oh that's right. I'm just echoing the words of others without any thoughts of my own or facts or history on my side. Yeah. Great. First of all, my friend, I don't rely on radio people as the source for anything other than to relate what they've said for discussion points. You are free to call such people "hacks", but like most who disagree, you don't support THAT charge in the least. And even if we were to find that any of these people have been mistaken on a particular point, that hardly means that they are always or even usually wrong or mistaken.
Here's where you go wrong. These people do their own research, and in fact, have a greater set up for fact finding than either you or I do. What makes you think that either of the sources you've named are without flaw or are any more or less capable of divining the truth than MY sources are? For your info, your sources are often used by the people I like. In addition, though I don't subscribe, I do read the WSJ on occasion and I wonder which of those are "hacks". "Hacks" is merely a word used by those who don't like what they hear from someone supporting the other side. Really, it's quite grade school. What's really important is not the bias, but the info and how it's supported. Of course my people are right of center. That in and of itself does not indicate a lack of knowledge or truth. In fact, I don't listen to anyone who I feel hasn't been reliable in relating facts as honestly as possible. So please don't go there anymore. It's most unbecoming. Nice try though. Just admit you don't want to take up the challenge. I'll go back to posting on my "hack" stories and wer can go from there.
I've listened to Rios and I have detailed her ignorance on my blog. I will admit that I have only seen Medved as a talking head on cable news, but he is on the same radio station as the idiot Kevin James.
Your lack of knowledge about the history of the Middle East and the history of American foreign intervention around the world is apparent from comments you make.
Neither the Wall Street Journal nor the Economist are hacks. They are both excellent publications with a conservative outlook. The op-ed page of the Journal gets a little goofy, but the reporting is very good.
Fine. You win. I'll play. Let's use this one:
"Broaching That Other Off-Limits Obama Topic"
The first thing that popped into my head as I read this article was the same thing that almost always pops into my head when I take issue with folks like Marc Sheppard. Namely, the glaring (intentional?) avoidance of situational context. Sheppard blasts the Obama camp for their anger over the "Hussein" robocall and Muslim garb incidents as compared to Obama's apparent acceptance of his background displayed in the Atlantic interview. I, for one, don't see the controversy here, because I, like many, got the impression his opponents were trying to somehow use whatever Muslim ties he may have had as a scare tactic to undermine his candidacy with a voting demographic still leery of all things Islam in a post-911 world. On the flip side, I think Obama was dead on when he said those very same traits might be useful when highlighted in front of a Muslim audience. It's really nothing more than sales fundamentals. Kinda like the way selling German cars used to be frowned upon in Israel. Nothing at all wrong with the cars, just not exactly the right target audience in which to highlight certain features about them.
The second thing about the article that bugged me was the part about the actual extent of Obama's so-called Muslim-ness, if you will. I kept thinking, "Well, if Obama was just a youngster when he got his Muslim lessons, how does that mean he was ever really a practicing Muslim?" This is personal to me, because I was raised by devout parents who made sure I followed their religious code until I moved in with my father as a teenager. I don't at ALL consider myself one who ever really "practiced" the religion of my parents, because I hadn't yet reached the age when the choices to do so would have genuinely been my own. As an adult, I can certainly respect and find virtue in select qualities of my parents' faith, but I would never in a million years decide it's the one true religion. Not even close.
The last thing that caught my eye in this article was the author's response to an apparent Islamic law that seems to let "apostate" Muslim children off the hook. I quote:
"Be that as it may, such technicalities - if applicable -- may or may not influence mainstream Muslim opinion and are certainly unlikely to dissuade jihadists."
Um, excuse me? Doesn't one of the major problems with violent Islamic factions lie in the fact that they take their rules waaaaaaay too seriously and waaaaaaay too literally? I'd imagine if they're willing to blow themselves up for their Islamic beliefs, odds are they're probably gonna follow the rules of Islam, no? So the whole assassination thing doesn't really hold water, if you ask me.
Vinny,
First of all, I live in the same area as you and was unaware that James has a show on WIND. Is that the station to which you refer? If so, I've STILL never heard of the guy. But no matter...
Secondly, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you post a link to whatever Rios rebuttal you have in mind? I'd like to review it and then respond on your site, if you don't mind (and if I have a response, of course). I'll make a deal with you: if I agree with your rebuttal, I'll say so both here and at your site in no uncertain terms. Howzat?
Les,
Thanks for playing (now that you talked me into bailing on the idea). You've selected a topic a bit less insignificat than Dan, so kudos for that as well. I've merely stopped home for lunch, so I'll have to re-read the article later, but I was really hoping for more of a policy thing. In my mind, his Musilm connection is not at the top of my list of bad reasons to vote for him. His "Christianity" is far more troublesome. But I'll get back to ya.
Brother man, I've waded through about seven of these stinking piles of opinion and I haven't FOUND a piece on policy.
Perhaps if you'd point to something with some significance???
Again, you can't ask us to do something and then, when we do it per your parameters, say, "well, you didn't do it right!! whine, whine..."
As to this:
You've selected a topic a bit less insignificat than Dan
If the first one I wrote about has indeed made up facts, then it is an EXTREMELY significant piece, although not in the way you think.
The creation of facts in our "media" hits at the foundation of our democracy and is extremely troubling if we reach a point where significant numbers of citizens can't tell the difference between the media and "the media..." - that is, made up, partisan "news" stories from either the Left or Right or whichever oil company or special interest group might engage in it.
Yes, it looks like that may have been a significantly significant piece I started with. I'd hope you'd not merely give a wave of the hand pass to fact creation.
Kevin James is part of the lineup on the LA station that includes Dennis Miller, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, and Medved. He got destroyed by Chris Matthews on Hardball last week. The Rios posts are all labeled on the front page of my blog. There is the one where she confuses the Apportionment Clause with the Dred Scott decision. Another good one is where equates an high school English assignment with child rape.
Dan,
The article you've chosen reported on ACTUAL statements Obama made. Moran didn't make those up. I've heard the tape several times now. It's an insignificant topic, both for you and Moran. It's mainly presented as a jab, kinda tit for tat for all the "Bush is stupid" comments that have bored us since before 2000. I didn't give the story any mind, why would you, why does anyone?
Regarding the rest of the Moran piece, Obama's attitude about main street America is not made up either. His recent speech wherein he talks about "clinging to guns..." hooks up with Moran's piece nicely. Where's the made up part?
Look. I do not dig unsubstantiated crap from either side, either. Saying something is, doesn't make it so.
I will concede your point regarding articles about policies. They're there, but most are about his character and his thought processes, which are based on his own statements as well as his passed performance as a politician and "community activist". With that in mind, character is more important than policy positions, because policy positions are just words. No matter which of these three end up in the big chair, I have a wait and see attitude regarding what they say and how much of it will come to pass (and by that I mean only what they attempt to pass regardless of whether the House and Senate back him/her). But I'm more fearful of Barry or Hillary based on what we've seen of them character-wise. We know McCain thinks little of his base, but his track record should be all one needs to understand what can be expected. Both Barry and Hillary have several questionable associations and their positions are already scary as hell. And most of the AT articles discussing Barry's fitness for duty expound on these particulars. And I think they do a damn fine job. I must say, however, if I had to defend a guy like Barry, I'd call them crap as well.
Vinny,
Erudite Redneck had the Hardball piece on his site. I couldn't view the whole thing. James is weak for sure. But had Matthews chosen any of the other personalities from that station, it would have been him who was shredded. James' performance was indeed, a true embarassment. They can't all be gems. The funny part for me, though, was that I've seen Matthews doing exactly the same thing for which he gave James crap. That is, simply shouting his position rather than engaging in debate. It's rather commonplace in fact. It's what makes watching that dude so painful. He can't stop shouting. Now, Matthews gets a taste of his own style and threatens to end the discussion. Not surprising.
Wow! You have a special place for Rios? I'm sure she'd be honored. I'll be heading to your place shortly for a first look-see.
To all,
If I've missed addressing any points on this or other recent posts, forgive me, there's so many. Feel free to point one out if you really wanted to read my retort and I'll get to it.
With that in mind, character is more important than policy positions, because policy positions are just words.
I largely agree. Which is one reason why it seems the Republicans are in such deep trouble this fall. Not so much because the Dems have proven themselves to have especially strong character, but that the Republicans have demonstrated in policy-matters and in personal matters a good bit more corruption.
People don't trust Bush. We don't like his character, as proven by his actions. We want change. We believe Obama to be that more moral, more character-driven, more astute policy direction kind of person that will lead us in a new direction.
He is entirely human and can and will make mistakes, and he'll be facing a world of mess from the current administration that he'll have to deal with and he will no doubt let us down in some ways but many of us are thinking that he's our best bet of the choices offered and by a good deal.
You may disagree, if you wish.
Thanks Dan. I do.
I can't see believing one who won't recognize the personhood of a living, breathing baby simply because it had the gall to survive an abortion. Where's the character there? And as you enjoy irony, coming from a (half)black man who wrote so boldly about the racism of his white brethren, that seems a bit much for him to be so arrogant as to decide who is or is not a person. His friendship and/or association with Ayers, Rezko, and others is also troubling if we talk about character.
I would also point out that we aren't considering all Republicans or Dems but three specific people, and it's THEIR character that is being scrutinized. Compared to even the few points I've just mentioned above, how do you see McCain's character as less than Barry's?
Also, actions alone are not enough in considering character. It might be wrong generally speaking, to shoot someone dead. But if he had me cornered and already fired several shots my way, that certainly motivated my actions. In the same way, Bush was motivated by actions of others, as well as the state of things at the time for actions that you may not have liked, and even considering the motivations, may still disagree, but I don't think there are any motivations that should sully your view of his character. This kind of parallels your question regarding whether or not it's possible for one to be wrong about one's Scriptural interpretations and still be saved. Can one be wrong about how one responds to external events and still maintain a good character? I don't see that anyone has ever proven that Bush ever acted out of self-interest, self-promotion, or anything other than the desire to do what he thought was best for the country.
In that sense, I can even allow that perhaps Obama acts from the same starting point, but his beliefs about how to do what he deems best, as well as those associations, are what puts him down as unworthy of consideration.
how do you see McCain's character as less than Barry's
Johnny? The fella who was opposed to torture until it became politically expedient to support torture?
That in and of itself is enough to cause serious concern (I at least had some respect for him as a POW when he was righteously opposed to torture).
From Mccainpedia.org:
John McCain says he wants to "[s]top the revolving door" of lobbyists in Washington. But if his campaign is any indication, lobbyists would play a central role in a McCain Administration. McCain's campaign is being run by lobbyists, many of whom lobbied for industries or foreign governments
Lobbyists are destroying our Democracy and that is yet another vital reason why Obama is the choice of Character while Johnny is politics as usual.
How about the fact that his wife won't release her financial record? Red flags, anyone?
I could go on, but won't. This, for me, is not so much about McCain's (I'm done with your game of using the first name, just giving you a taste of how childish that looks) character, but his policies - which are more of the dead wrong same.
In many ways, especially up until this last decade, McCain has demonstrated some character. But he still is more of the same as BushClintonReagan corporate bosses making the calls, special interests running the White House and politics of, by and for corporate America.
Obama, the candidate of Character.
If I were to go on about character, I'd point out that the "Pro-Family" Republicans are once again running an adulterer. McCain left his first (? I'm not sure if it was his first wife or not) wife after she was in a car wreck which left her somewhat disabled and chubbier. He left her for pretty young Cindy, who refuses to release her tax records.
Or, I might mention how the "anti-drugs" Republicans are nominating a man whose wife took and stole drugs. (And hopefully she has received help for it and has admitted her problem - I'm not looking to use someone's personal failures as a political weapon, but you asked and this is the type of thing that causes folk to look at Republicans as especially corrupt and hypocritical. We may not trust the Dems much, but they don't come across - in media reports and convictions - as nearly as hypocritical and corrupt as the Republicans.)
Or I might mention his relationship with fellas like Tully or Keating, liars and frauds, both.
Character does matter, I just don't find anything troubling about Obama's character and, if I do find problems with McCain's character.
Your problem with Obama's character is that he disagrees with you on the abortion matter. That's not really a character problem so much as it is a policy problem.
I mean, we can all play it that way: That McCain is not opposed to this Iraq Invasion shows a serious lack of character - does he really think it okay to target and kill civilians?? What's wrong with him?!!. Does he really think it okay to invade sovereign countries (Iraq, Somalia, etc) and make illegal assassination attempts?? What's wrong with him??!!
If we want to look at it that way, many of our policy disagreements come down to thinking the candidate lacks character. Otherwise they wouldn't disagree with me and support that heinous policy.
But, other than policy disagreements, where in the world do you find a problem with Obama's character? Obama, who is by all accounts, a noble man who has worked hard to make something of his life, to contribute positively to the world, to work to ease the suffering of the oppressed and poor.
You don't like his former pastor because of five lines he's said over a lifetime and because Obama has two acquaintences (not friends) that you don't like, therefore, he lacks character?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"(I'm done with your game of using the first name, just giving you a taste of how childish that looks)"
Oh, please. This quasi-sanctimony is unbecoming even on you. Particularly after all the baseless charges leveled against Bush over the years. Dismount that high nag.
What is a lobbyist? Lobbyists are those who approach legislators on behalf of themselves or others to encourage the enactment of legislation sought by said groups. The problem is never with the lobbyists, even if they are legitimately malevolent in their intent. The problem is with the politicians they succeed in tempting. Who voted for these people but us? A lobbyist is only a good as the cause he represents and the politicians' own character in response to the request by him. This is just as stupid as McCain/Feingold, wherein Johnny put forth the notion that money in Washington is the problem. This is just as stupid as saying guns kill, instead of the people who weild them. The problem wasn't money, it was weak politicians. The same goes for lobbyists. In addition, it is rather judgemental, in a "Judge not..." sense of the expression, to suggest that simply being a lobbyist guarantees some nefarious intent. Shame on you for that.
"Obama, the candidate of Character.
...who calls a race baiter his mentor, who freely associates with unrepentent domestic terrorists, who has raised money for foreign terrorists, who freely calls a living, breathing baby less than a person....The candidate of character, sure. Low character.
In other words, you have nothing. Nothing. Zero. You have only innuendo and disagreement about policy as to why you want to suggest he has low character.
hey, it's a free country.
I just thought you were more of a serious commenter than that.
I've had enough of this, as fun as it's been.
If you ever get around to apologizing for your misleading comments about Obama's lack of a plan, or if you even look at his actual policies and have serious commentary on them, let me know.
If you want to stick to the grade school level, "barry" crap, have fun.
It's been real. Peace!
I will say that as to this:
sense of the expression, to suggest that simply being a lobbyist guarantees some nefarious intent.
I certainly agree with you. It was not my intent to malign all lobbyists, and I apologize if it sounded that way. I, after all, have lobbied my representatives to make positive changes.
The lobbyists that I deplore are those representing (usually moneyed) special interests who have something to gain by getting gov't to do their bidding.
PLEASE, lobby on behalf of the hungry, on behalf of the environment, on behalf of transparent gov't, on behalf of children, against corruption, etc, etc. Lobby for or against whatever your concerns are. that's how our gov't works.
But let's get these Oil, Coal, Road-builder, Military Contractors, and other moneyed interest who stand to profit financially OUT of our representatives' collective beds.
I applaud McCain for his efforts (such as they have been) to this end thus far. I deplore that he has had these self-same Lobbyists serving his campaign seeking favors down the road. Should it appear that Obama has any of these sort of moneyed lobbyists seeking favors, I shall deplore that, as well. Thus far, he seems quite clean in that regards.
Dan,
You've got a lot of nerve demanding apologies from me about something as stupid as using a nickname, one he himself has used in his younger days. Could one be more petty? And you do this while maintaining that you insist upon Bush having evil and selfish intent in his actions. Black pot, meet the kettle.
Oh yes, and as to his "plans"...
First of all I'm still in the process of reviewing his site.
Secondly, bad plans and stale, already tried plans are no plans at all.
Okay, I was trying to go away and will again, but just to point out some really strange interpretations on your part...
You've got a lot of nerve demanding apologies from me about something as stupid as using a nickname, one he himself has used in his younger days. Could one be more petty? And you do this while maintaining that you insist upon Bush having evil and selfish intent in his actions.
?
1. I have not demanded an apology for anything. Certainly not for your silly reference to Obama as "Barry."
2. I did suggest that I might come back around if and when you apologize for your mischaracterization of Obama's (fictional, as we have found out) lack of plans and if you start commenting on a more serious, adult level. That's not a "demand," it's an observation, a reality.
3. I'm relatively sure that I have never said that Bush has evil and selfish intent in his actions. In fact, quite the opposite. I've said in the past that I'm relatively sure that he's doing what he thinks is right.
And, in spite of your clear mischaracterizations of what I have said and what I believe, you'll most likely go on the attack again instead of saying, "whoops, my bad, I misunderstood."
If past experience is any indication, you'll likely say something like, "I can't believe you'd insist that you didn't say that when it was clearly implied!" or just ignore it and move on to another attack. This is the less than adult way that has caused me to weary of talking with you, brother M.
God's blessings upon you.
Last one: I will note that you have been silent on McCain's so-called "character" since reading of it specifically.
You agree, perhaps, he's been less than savory in significant, character-defining ways?
Or are you just thinking of the best spin you can put on the reality of his all-too-human, all-too-Republican lack of character?
"If you ever get around to apologizing for your misleading comments about Obama's lack of a plan,"
Does this sound like a demand to anyone else? Anyone? Buehler?
I believe I just clarified my "no plans" position by saying that the same old thing is no plan to me. If there's any "change" inherent in Barry's "plans", it's simply to go back to doing what has already failed in the past. That ain't no plan. In addition, before you get another attack of the vapors, is that I'm still working on plodding my way through his site. So back off on that a while.
As for Mickey, I believe also, that I've made it quite plain that demands for equal time are in vain, as I am not a McCain supporter either. I only intend to vote for him because I believe he plainly is less crappy a choice than either of the Dem offerings. Remember this point, Dan, so you don't wait around for what won't come.
Oh, I was pretty sure there was nothing substantive coming from you. It's not your M.O. You prefer to cast false allegations, twist words and then, when called on it, either twist words further to explain why your lies aren't really lies, or you move the goalposts ("when I said X, I REALLY meant Y..."), no apologies for the lies and the misrepresentations, you just move on to bear false witness further.
I don't know if it's pathological with you and you can't help it or if you're so deluded that you think that anyone who disagrees with the Great Marshall must be a monster and so you can justify lies to demonize them or what it is, but I hope you get help some day.
Shame on you, but you got to do what you got to do.
Have a nice life.
Dan, just because you post often and long comments does not indicate that they are substantive. You are the one that often rants and calls names. I guess you do it so often, you don't even realize what you are doing. Did you not see where M.A. asked you to hold on, not everyone seems to be able to spend 24 hours a day blogging. Mom2
Actually, Mom2, I spend way too much time blogging.
Dan,
It's cute they way you get all huffy over my comment belittling Barry's plan (and my blaspheming by using the nickname "Barry"--just so's you know, Obama is not yet been made deity. Your horror provoked by my doing so moves me not even a little) as being no plan, and calling me a liar for it. The shame will haunt me for...well, it's gone now. If that's the best you can do, you're in trouble. As to twisting and misinterpreting, I could never hope to approach your talent for it. You, sir, are the master. My compliments, sir.
Post a Comment