Reply With Quote
I actually asked Wild Cobra twice and he has ignored the question.
Why is it that you require solid evidence, picture, signed do ents, receipts, etc. when dealing with Mccain? yet when it comes to Obama you let loose with anything you find on a blog and claim it's fact?
If you need to see proof for one candidate, yet not require it for the other, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?
I actually asked Wild Cobra twice and he has ignored the question.
Because all black people are liars.
In what respect, George?
The opinion piece concerning Ayer's relationship with Oabama for one. The articles was based on meeting notes and the author had to make various assumptions to make his claims. Like clock work, the righties on the board proceeded to label Obama a liar. McCain and Palin accusations come out and they are disregarded as being pursued by the Liberal MSM or political hacks.
Here is a list of facts published in that thread:
They support, frankly, the premise that Obama has not been completely forthcoming in his description of his relationship with Ayers.1. Ayers was the co-founder of the Weather Underground. They participated in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, including bombing the Pentagon, and attacks on judges presiding on prominent cases. Ayers avoided conviction only because evidence against him was allegedly collected illegally. Ayers describes himself openly as "a small-c communist".
2. When questioned about his association with Ayers, Obama claimed that he was "a guy who lives in the neighborhood". He told ABC directly that he first met the Ayers at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995. Those statements are so vastly incorrect that they cannot be construed as mistakes, or simple mis-statements.
3. In 1989, Obama was hired as a summer associate at Sidley and Austin. That firm had also recently hired Ayers' wife. The managing partner of Sidley and Austin was a well-known close personal friend of Ayers father.
4. Obama only had one legal job after graduating law school - in 1993, at a firm known as Davis, Miner, and Barnhill. He was hired by name partner Judson Miner, who "happens" to be a personal friend and law school classmate of Ayers' wife.
5. In 1997, Obama and Ayers appeared together in a panel at the University of Illinois-Chicago (about the juvenile justice system), and in 2002 they again appeared at U of C as members of a 6-person panel discussing "Intellectuals in Times of Crisis". Both of those forums were set up by Mic e Obama, who was a University of Chicago PR exec.
6. Ayers headed the creation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and made Obama one of the founding board members. Obama was the chairman of the foundation for 3 years, beginning in 1995, and continued to serve on the board until 2001.
7. In 1998, 1999, and 2000 Obama and Ayers were both paid directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. The board only had 9 members, and met 12 times per year, which makes it difficult to believe Obama's claim that he "doesn't remember" Ayers being a member of the board. (Obama did not receive his $6,000 compensation from the board in 2001. That same year, the foundation donated exactly $6,000 to Obama's church [see: Jeremiah Wright], even though the funds' own bylaws stated that religious organizations were not eligible for grants.)
8. In 1999, the Woods Fund donated $50,000 to the Annenberg Challenge. Both Obama and Ayers served on both boards, but Obama "doesn't remember" Ayers.
9. In 2000, Obama voted for the Woods foundation to give a $1 Million grant to his old boss Allison Davis, formerly of Davis, Miner, and Barnhill (see: #4 above), another Ayers associate.
We'll do it one at a time then...you pick one issue that you think conservatives should accept at face value and then I'll pick one that you have to accept at face value. Each side will get 2 denials that require no arguments.
I dont really think thats the point, to be honest.
The point, I believe, is that all issues with either candidate(s) should be treated with the same skepticism, regardless of your chosen affiliation.
What you propose is not a journey of needed bias removal, but a task in compromise. Which benefits no one, save for the resident partisan think-police.
The point is that it is not only conservatives that ask for the same amount of evidence...liberals require it as well whenever a conservative makes an argument.
It would be a fun thread though.
they are tossing hoping it sticks. just listen to a hannity rant. he just spews everything he can think of negatively about the dems and repeats it over and over again and I don't think he even believes what he is saying.
Definitely agree with you there. People readily believe negative things about the candidate they want to lose and demand ironclad proof for negative things about their candidate.
It's the same with people holding office as well. No one believes Clinton did anything that serves the conservative agenda (which he did several) and no one believes that Bush did anything good (which he did, even if it is very overshadowed by other things).
It's the nature of things. You have an opinion of someone, and you latch on to anything that supports that opinion, no matter how flimsy, and gloss over anything that contradicts it, no matter how concrete. It's almost impossible to NOT do that.
Of course that's your opinion. I am not going to argue whether Obama is an Ayers sucker or not but to accept it as truth and repeat it as such is not intellectually honest.
Anyway, where are all of the prominent righties on the board? xray? yoni? wild cobra ( i have asked him twice), 2centsworth? whott? snake?
Still no proof of a lie?1. Ayers was the co-founder of the Weather Underground. They participated in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, including bombing the Pentagon, and attacks on judges presiding on prominent cases. Ayers avoided conviction only because evidence against him was allegedly collected illegally. Ayers describes himself openly as "a small-c communist".
Has nothing to do with Obama
2. When questioned about his association with Ayers, Obama claimed that he was "a guy who lives in the neighborhood". He told ABC directly that he first met the Ayers at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995. Those statements are so vastly incorrect that they cannot be construed as mistakes, or simple mis-statements.
So what if the guy is his neighbor?
3. In 1989, Obama was hired as a summer associate at Sidley and Austin. That firm had also recently hired Ayers' wife. The managing partner of Sidley and Austin was a well-known close personal friend of Ayers father.
No proof he met him.
4. Obama only had one legal job after graduating law school - in 1993, at a firm known as Davis, Miner, and Barnhill. He was hired by name partner Judson Miner, who "happens" to be a personal friend and law school classmate of Ayers' wife.
No proof he met him.
5. In 1997, Obama and Ayers appeared together in a panel at the University of Illinois-Chicago (about the juvenile justice system), and in 2002 they again appeared at U of C as members of a 6-person panel discussing "Intellectuals in Times of Crisis". Both of those forums were set up by Mic e Obama, who was a University of Chicago PR exec.
Consistent with claim meeting him 1995.
6. Ayers headed the creation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and made Obama one of the founding board members. Obama was the chairman of the foundation for 3 years, beginning in 1995, and continued to serve on the board until 2001.
I guess you could call him a liar for stating he was an aquaintence because of this. What's thie big deal? Of course if he says he is friendly with him Sean hannity and 101A will convict Obama as an unrepetent terrorist.
7. In 1998, 1999, and 2000 Obama and Ayers were both paid directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago. The board only had 9 members, and met 12 times per year, which makes it difficult to believe Obama's claim that he "doesn't remember" Ayers being a member of the board. (Obama did not receive his $6,000 compensation from the board in 2001. That same year, the foundation donated exactly $6,000 to Obama's church [see: Jeremiah Wright], even though the funds' own bylaws stated that religious organizations were not eligible for grants.)
Seems to me by now they have served on a couple of boards by now so if Obama was stating he didn't remember if Ayers was a memeber of this board doesn't make him a liar. Of course we could use the Lewis Libby defense that he simple forgot.
8. In 1999, the Woods Fund donated $50,000 to the Annenberg Challenge. Both Obama and Ayers served on both boards, but Obama "doesn't remember" Ayers.
Don't recall Obama ever mentioning that he 'doesn't remember Ayers'
9. In 2000, Obama voted for the Woods foundation to give a $1 Million grant to his old boss Allison Davis, formerly of Davis, Miner, and Barnhill (see: #4 above), another Ayers associate.
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 09-24-2008 at 01:26 PM.
who cares about william ayers?
i wouldn't sweat about yoni. just recall that momentous event where it left him paralyzed from fear of black people. thats where his position is manifested from.
No proof. That's the standard; no stain on the blue dress; didn't happen. Fair enough. Nothing to worry about there.
You guys just don't get it. Liberal pundits have repeatedly shown themselves to cook up stories that are in error. Just look at all the false attacks on Sarah Palin once she was named. Sure, some conservative pundits also twist the truth or lie too, but the sheer statistics of it prove out that there is bias, and that few liberal written stories are factual. They simply do not have the same accuracy as conservatives. Yes, you can pick out some who have problems with the truth. However, there are conservative sources that are seldom wrong.
You liberals quote things from Newsweek, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Common Dreams, etc. etc. Publications that are clearly biased and very seldom trying to maintain the facts within their stories.
Look at the number of stories you guys link and quote that prove out to have factual errors that render the story pointless.
Look at how many perpetrated lies the left makes that you guys continue to believe, like president Bush being a former coke addict.
I for one, do not take the time very often to prove you all wrong. I would think the times I have are good enough that you should believe me. I am one that does admit when I am wrong. I think ElNono has been the best one at finding errors in my statement. A few of the rest of you have at times too, but think about it. How often can any of you find unimpeachable facts that I am wrong? I seldom make a statement I am unsure of. I have sources I trust, and some I look up before believing. I do my homework in ways you liberals don't. I have over and over shown my points to be correct, but you guys haven't. You don't know how to read the stories correctly. The stories you quote are written to leave incorrect impressions with words used to imply untrue facts
You liberals are just leftist lemmings, repeating what your masters tell you.
I have wasted my time with proofs enough and still have crack those think heads of yours, and you then have the gall to ask why I don't waste more time proving my point, when you aren't going to believe me anyway? I seldom now look for valid links if I don't find then within a few minutes. Why should I waste my time on you guys like that?
fiction
Pleasse post a link to your statistical study showing few liberal written stories are factual.Sure, some conservative pundits also twist the truth or lie too, but the sheer statistics of it prove out that there is bias, and that few liberal written stories are factual.
I'm just curious. Which ones are you referring to?
The New York Times and Newsweek are kinda bound by laws to tell the truth. Otherwise they get sued. And readers stop reading. Kind of like the New York Post.You liberals quote things from Newsweek, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Common Dreams, etc. etc. Publications that are clearly biased and very seldom trying to maintain the facts within their stories.
Can you give me an example?Look at the number of stories you guys link and quote that prove out to have factual errors that render the story pointless.
He wasn't a coke addict. But I think he definitely did coke in the 60s or 70s. If he didn't, why wouldn't he just say he didn't do coke when he was asked? There's a funny interview someone did where they asked him what if he had run when his Father did (when you couldn't have done drugs for the previous 15 years), could he still have run. He didn't give an immediate answer. He thought about it for a second and said yes. 1989-15 = 1974Look at how many perpetrated lies the left makes that you guys continue to believe, like president Bush being a former coke addict.
You guys can forget much more from me on this subject. It's a waste of time, and I will not change your minds.
Chump, you at least know I used to do more work at disputing other people than I do now. Can you acknowldge that perhaps I am truly tired of wasting my time?
Awwww don't leave. I was really wondering which things you were talking about.
Does audio and/or video of Obama's spiritual advisor for the past 20 years count as solid evidence?
The Wright thing I really don't get. It's some pastor in a big church. Who cares? If you really care about someone's religious leader then why aren't you asking about Sarah Palin's Witch Hunter pastor? I just don't see how it's important.
Please post a link to your statistical study showing few liberal written stories are factual.
Such a study might change my mind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
