First, I sometimes disagree strongly with other people. But I have found that if I converse respectfully and try to understand the other person's point of view, I often learn that I have quite a bit in common with the person. I hope that can happen to all of us here.
Second, piling on additional arguments, in this case, other things to be perceived to be bad about Obama, has nothing to do with the original point. Adding additional arguments is typically a distraction used when the first argument has been lost. I won't respond to those.
@david. said:
The left defines its own "truth", independent of the actual facts.. e.g., Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". That is the way of the leftist.
There are immoral politicians on the left and the right. Here Clinton took advantage of a legalism to technically tell the truth while he deceived the grand jury. That made Bill Clinton look bad. I certainly prefer that to "We don't torture." Which is true only if you change the meaning of torture from what it has always been. That made the United States look bad and it made you and me part of an immoral system that tortures people to find out if they are guilty or innocent.
@david. said:
The Ayers quote is "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
First, note the three little dots. That's where the reporter took out some other words. It could be that those words did not change the implication and Bill Ayers wishes he had set more bombs and that he wishes he could have caused death and injury. It also could be that the two sentences were not related and that they were put together to deceive. All of us know that the press sometimes deceives. To find out what his meaning was, the best we can do is read other things he has said and written. NONE of that indicates what is implied.
@david. said:
Assume Timothy McVeigh had been acquitted because of an error on the part of law enforcement (rather than being convicted and executed). If McCain had his political career opening at the home of McVeigh,
If in your example, 1) McVeigh had caused damage to property in an attempt to stop an immoral war instead of killing 168 and injuring 450 of which 19 were children in a day care, as part of his white supremacist beliefs in order to get revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge", AND 2) McVeigh had since become a professor of education at a top university, AND 3) McVeigh had become a widely respected leader involved in making his community better, AND 4) McVeigh had committed those crimes almost 40 years ago, AND 5) McVeigh had hosted one of many fund raising meetings for John McCain who was not a close friend, perhaps then some on
@david. said:
the left would be absolutely hysterical.
But I don't think many would, and I wouldn't.
@david. said:
The question is, what's the difference between the terrorist Ayers and the terrorist McVeigh? Answer: Justice.
Do you really believe that, or is this just partisan rhetoric which distracts us from the real issues?
If you think Obama is the wrong choice for President, is this why, or can you tell us your real reasons?
But like my comments above, that's just my personal preference.
