What We Look For In Our Leaders

payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.
1. People vote for people they like. That's why Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were elected. That's why I think Obama will get a second term. He is more popular than any of his legislation. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit the guy has a lot of charisma.

He got elected on charisma and talking a good line for sure though he did get a lot of help from a deeply unpopular President Bush and a Republican opponent that may have run the world's worst campaign.

But I think he has blown a lot of that political capital when it became obvious that there was no conviction behind that good line he talked as a candidate; and when he made it perfectly clear that he considers the people idiots and he was going to do what he wanted regardless of what any of us thought about it. So his approval ratings have been steadily eroding as more and more people regard him as far more arrogant than charismatic.

Arrogance is difficult for many people to like.

So we'll see. I wouldn't want to bet the farm that he'll be re-elected. But then I wouldn't bet the farm that he won't either.
 
You have provided the proof only when you QUOTE substantiating documents! That is the essence of proof! Didn't you go to school?

Yes...several of them.

You want it all to be laid out on a platter for you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you I know you'll eventually ignore anyway. If been down this road with others too many times to bother. I don't feel the need to waste my valuable time that much. Sorry.

The evidence is there. Intelligence officers are supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots. And I've shown you some pretty massive dots....but none of it is good enough for you. I gave you what you needed to start down the road of discovery on your own.....or can't you do that? You did get a degree didn't you? That's what most college profs. do anyway...hand you a syllabus and tell you to get cracking. If you can't figure this out on your own then you're too stupid or too prejudiced to even try.
 
Last edited:
payn090921_01_cmyk20090921093553.jpg


There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.
1. People vote for people they like. That's why Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were elected. That's why I think Obama will get a second term. He is more popular than any of his legislation. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit the guy has a lot of charisma.

Actually he's not very popular...but alot of people are wedded to him.

They can't admit that what they're seeing is what it is...and they don't want to admit they made a serious error voting for him.

Not to mention the still virulent hatred for the opposition.

His positives and negatives go somewhere around 48% for and 51% against. Many of those for feel they have no other options. So I really don't think he's popular at all. He's less popular then Jimmy Carter was at the end of his term. But as long as there are no better options he's still got a chance.
 
You have provided the proof only when you QUOTE substantiating documents! That is the essence of proof! Didn't you go to school?

Yes...several of them.

You want it all to be laid out on a platter for you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you I know you'll eventually ignore anyway. If been down this road with others too many times to bother. I don't feel the need to waste my valuable time that much. Sorry.

The evidence is there. Intelligence officers are supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots. And I've shown you some pretty massive dots....but none of it is good enough for you. I gave you what you needed to start down the road of discovery on your own.....or can't you do that? You did get a degree didn't you? That's what most college profs. do anyway...hand you a syllabus and tell you to get cracking. If you can't figure this out on your own then you're too stupid or too prejudiced to even try.

Professors don't come into a classroom dressed like a clown. They don't drive up to the school with thier car covered in bumper stickers all slanted towards one hack point of view.

You do not come to enlighten ..you come to preach, spread venom and with a hubris, an expectation of agreement.

The "dots" you offer as evidence are bogus as well. There are thousands of dots on the landscape but your destination is predetermined before you survey connecting points.

Without a rational weighing of "dots" the system you claim as obvios and intelligent is just you finding affermative dots on your way to a conclusion you already had.

That is all.
PudWhistler
 
You have provided the proof only when you QUOTE substantiating documents! That is the essence of proof! Didn't you go to school?

Yes...several of them.

You want it all to be laid out on a platter for you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you I know you'll eventually ignore anyway. If been down this road with others too many times to bother. I don't feel the need to waste my valuable time that much. Sorry.

The evidence is there. Intelligence officers are supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots. And I've shown you some pretty massive dots....but none of it is good enough for you. I gave you what you needed to start down the road of discovery on your own.....or can't you do that? You did get a degree didn't you? That's what most college profs. do anyway...hand you a syllabus and tell you to get cracking. If you can't figure this out on your own then you're too stupid or too prejudiced to even try.

By shifting the burden of proof to a critic, instead of directly supporting your claim, you have committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance:

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]"

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof]Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”

- Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370

If you wish to hold an intelligent debate, you need to support your claims rather than appealing to ignorance.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
 
You have provided the proof only when you QUOTE substantiating documents! That is the essence of proof! Didn't you go to school?

Yes...several of them.

You want it all to be laid out on a platter for you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you I know you'll eventually ignore anyway. If been down this road with others too many times to bother. I don't feel the need to waste my valuable time that much. Sorry.

The evidence is there. Intelligence officers are supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots. And I've shown you some pretty massive dots....but none of it is good enough for you. I gave you what you needed to start down the road of discovery on your own.....or can't you do that? You did get a degree didn't you? That's what most college profs. do anyway...hand you a syllabus and tell you to get cracking. If you can't figure this out on your own then you're too stupid or too prejudiced to even try.

Professors don't come into a classroom dressed like a clown. They don't drive up to the school with thier car covered in bumper stickers all slanted towards one hack point of view.

You do not come to enlighten ..you come to preach, spread venom and with a hubris, an expectation of agreement.

The "dots" you offer as evidence are bogus as well. There are thousands of dots on the landscape but your destination is predetermined before you survey connecting points.

Without a rational weighing of "dots" the system you claim as obvios and intelligent is just you finding affermative dots on your way to a conclusion you already had.

That is all.
PudWhistler

The above is nothing but mindless drivel.

You focus on the word "dots" and ignore the substance of what I said.

I've dealt with too many morons like you to waste any more time trying to lay out the case anymore.

Go back and read the previous evidence posted.

If that's not good enough...fuck off.
 
You have provided the proof only when you QUOTE substantiating documents! That is the essence of proof! Didn't you go to school?

Yes...several of them.

You want it all to be laid out on a platter for you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you I know you'll eventually ignore anyway. If been down this road with others too many times to bother. I don't feel the need to waste my valuable time that much. Sorry.

The evidence is there. Intelligence officers are supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots. And I've shown you some pretty massive dots....but none of it is good enough for you. I gave you what you needed to start down the road of discovery on your own.....or can't you do that? You did get a degree didn't you? That's what most college profs. do anyway...hand you a syllabus and tell you to get cracking. If you can't figure this out on your own then you're too stupid or too prejudiced to even try.

By shifting the burden of proof to a critic, instead of directly supporting your claim, you have committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance:

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]"

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof]Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”

- Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370

If you wish to hold an intelligent debate, you need to support your claims rather than appealing to ignorance.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

I supported them. I provided evidence but of course a hack like yourself refuses to look at it. Unless the words in my evidence say "Obama trained community organizers to overthrow the government" you can't see what Camp Obama and Project Vote were all about. Simply looking up these too items on the net will tell you all you need to know. Then look up Alinsky's Rules For Radicals and it spells out Obama's tactics in greatest detail. Then if you want to find out the kind of man Obama is look up Black Liberation Theology and read his books Audacity of Hope...and Dreams From My Father.

Try learning about this charlatan without being led through it by someone else. None of it is opinion...none of it was written by a critic. It's just the facts.
 
I provided evidence but . . . .(u)nless the words in my evidence say "Obama trained community organizers to overthrow the government" (you) can't see what Camp Obama and Project Vote were all about. Simply looking up these too items on the net will tell you all you need to know. Then look up Alinsky's Rules For Radicals and it spells out Obama's tactics in greatest detail. Then if you want to find out the kind of man Obama is look up Black Liberation Theology and read his books Audacity of Hope...and Dreams From My Father.

Try learning about this charlatan without being led through it by someone else. None of it is opinion...none of it was written by a critic. It's just the facts.

Apologies for slightly altering the text above, though I hope you'll agree I did not change your intent or context in any way.

At this point I think Mudwhistle is ahead of the debate on substance since he at least has been able to provide reasoned analogy for his point of view as opposed to those who have no rationale for their point of view and think it is sufficient just to criticize Mudwhistle's analogies.

I will quarrel with Mudwhistle on one statement. It was something to the effect that a person's race would be significant because blacks would be biased in favor of a black president. I think I've read your posts enough to know that you would most likely have qualified that statement somewhat had you thought about it more. But since you didn't in that post. . . .

I do think any black person who was at all race conscious would have a bit of emotional investment in a black President succeeding. It could be seen as a kind of affirmation that the black man had finally arrived on equal footing in this country. Hell, I'm not black, but I wanted our first black President to succeed as that could have helped break down some of the residual racism that still pervades the national conversation.

Others might go even further with that in believing a black man would have the black community's interests at heart in a way no white many could. But that part is part of the residual racism mentioned in the previous paragraph.

But all black people were not so convinced. Thomas Sowell, for instance, did exhaustive research on what was available in Obama's background and listened carefully for code words and innuendo in Obama's writing and many speeches. Then Sowell wrote essay after essay expressing what he had read and observed and emphasisized what we would be getting if Obama was elected President.

Every single point Sowell made has come true in the first 19 months of this administration. (You'll find the essays linked on his website - all published in the months leading up to the 2008 election.)

Those who do not value individual freedom, resourcefulness, competence, ability, success and who want the government to be the umbrella to take care of most human problems of course love Obama and defend him in just about everything as a necessary price to pay to accomplish a goal of human dependency under a benevolent government.

Those who do value individual freedom, resourcefulness, competence, ability, success and who want government to secure our rights and then mostly get out of our way, long for a leader who will support and promote that. And that sure isn't Obama. And I think a growing number of black Americans are now dealing with fading hopes for the first black President as they begin to see that.

Obama's problem is not that he is black. That has nothing to do with it. It does have to do that he has a soft Marxism ingrained into his psyche along with many socialist concepts, and I don't believe he really understands or values or appreciates the miracle that the United States of America is.

And most of us want leaders who do.

Apologies for this being so long. I should have broken it down more.
 
Last edited:
Yes...several of them.

You want it all to be laid out on a platter for you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove something to you I know you'll eventually ignore anyway. If been down this road with others too many times to bother. I don't feel the need to waste my valuable time that much. Sorry.

The evidence is there. Intelligence officers are supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots. And I've shown you some pretty massive dots....but none of it is good enough for you. I gave you what you needed to start down the road of discovery on your own.....or can't you do that? You did get a degree didn't you? That's what most college profs. do anyway...hand you a syllabus and tell you to get cracking. If you can't figure this out on your own then you're too stupid or too prejudiced to even try.

By shifting the burden of proof to a critic, instead of directly supporting your claim, you have committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance:

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]"

- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof]Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”

- Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370

If you wish to hold an intelligent debate, you need to support your claims rather than appealing to ignorance.

"The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
- Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

I supported them. I provided evidence but of course a hack like yourself refuses to look at it. Unless the words in my evidence say "Obama trained community organizers to overthrow the government" you can't see what Camp Obama and Project Vote were all about. Simply looking up these too items on the net will tell you all you need to know. Then look up Alinsky's Rules For Radicals and it spells out Obama's tactics in greatest detail. Then if you want to find out the kind of man Obama is look up Black Liberation Theology and read his books Audacity of Hope...and Dreams From My Father.

Try learning about this charlatan without being led through it by someone else. None of it is opinion...none of it was written by a critic. It's just the facts.

"Mudwhistle is ahead of the debate on substance"? Really? Where is his substance to support his claims? My questions were specific and tied to specific claims, and had nothing to do with "training community organizers to overthrow the government." Saying "the evidence is there" without specific details is not providing evidence. Proof IS provided "on a platter" during debates. Mudwhistle did not substantiate his claims with SPECIFIC evidence, and has therefore failed to meet his burden of proof.

Honest people distinguish between verifiable facts and speculation. Misrepresenting speculation as fact is dishonest, even when your speculation is based on circumstantial evidence, and is at best only a deceptive "half-truth." As indicated earlier, I am still awaiting:

1. Evidence to support your claims of Obama's "friendship" with Ayers, Soros, or Rezco
2. The names of Obama's FRIENDS that committed violent acts against the U.S.
3. Evidence of Obama's visits to terrorist states
4. Evidence that Wright is a "racist"
5. Evidence that an ACORN goal is the peaceful overthrow of our government
6. Evidence that Obama had an "avid belief" in peaceful overthrow of our government.
7. Evidence that an ACORN goal is causing economic turmoil
8. Evidence that Obama's "close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind." Activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration. According to "Dreams," Obma visited Davis only once before leaving for college.

Are these claims speculation based on circumstantial evidence, or are they verifiable FACTS supported by primary source evidence? The burden of proof is always upon the claimant to support his claims. By criticizing his critic rather than substantiating his claims, he is appealing to ignorance. Where exactly are the FACTS that support THESE claims? As they say on CSI: "Follow the evidence!"
 
MKDavis, please don't resort to tactics like that.

First it makes for the most boring thread possible, and generally brings any kind of meaningful discussion to a halt.

Second, it makes you look like a leftwing looney shill by employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens.

Suggestion. If you are really serious about discussing the subject take one point and put it out there. Explain why Ayers, for instance, is not an issue where Obama is concerned. Give your best evidence, and be able to rebut your opponent when he offers counter evidence.

And that would make for an interesting discussion.

What you are doing with your list is counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest.
 
This is a case of taking the horse to water.....

It's impossible to force you to see the truth. I guess you'll just have to find out the hard way just like every other Obamamanic. I'm not gonna spoonfeed everything to you. You should be smart enough to figure it out for yourself...but you can't.

What you've done is scanned the pages looking for the words overthrow the government and couldn't find it...so that to you means it's not there even though every other way of expressing it is there.

You're an idiot. Fuck off.

Alas, poor Mudwhistle, it appears that the urbandictionary.com definition of "Mudwhistle" definitely applies to our delusional friend. My condolences! If anyone else can quote any empirical evidence (not speculation) that supports Mudwhistle's unsubstantiated claims (above), then please help her out.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy. It's a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It's a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.

Sure, Saddam used WMD in the 1980s, but the claim that he was an actual threat to the United States in the 21st century was based on false evidence. It was a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie). Sure, Edgar Tidwell provided credible evidence that Frank Marshall Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, but the claim that "his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a Soviet agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin"[1] is based on false evidence. It is deliberate misrepresentation (i.e., a lie).

As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century.

This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in which targets are smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. In both cases master propagandists falsely claimed that works of fiction were authentic accounts of their targets, in order to provoke further attacks. Both cases depended upon gullible members of the general population, who were predisposed to believing such disinformation, and who could be counted upon to spread such smears even further.

In the absence of credible evidence, both cases fail miserably under close scrutiny. As cesspools of slander, innuendo, and trumped-up charges, such unsubstantiated accusations reflect the perverse nature of their accusers more than their targets.

Could someone back poor Mudwhistle up before she starts to cry?


"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Yes...disinformation.....the same kind Obama is using everyday in the MSM. One thing that makes it most effective is prejudicing the minds of your target audience to the point where they simply refuse to believe anything that goes against their core beliefs regardless of the validity. They play on your beliefs in stereotypes, your natural discriminatory habits. They use your own prejudices against you. They appeal to your lessor instincts...such as hatred, envy, whatever compels you.

Retired Air Force Intel officer, huh?

I always wonder sometimes the motivations of those who have served in uniform to support Democrats. It just doesn't make alot of sense.

Everything they stand for is against those of us who served our country.

So why does someone who served in the military support someone who hates your guts...hates everything you once stood for?

Are you Gay?

Are you Black?

Who knows what the reason is. Why someone with your intelligence can't see the writing on the walls. There usually is a logical reason that you constantly throw away common sense and mindlessly follow this skinny prick and try desperately to discount the facts against him. There has to be.

Maybe the simple fact that you were an officer makes it impossible to use common-sense. I've often wondered about that. I even went through the OCS selection process and decided it wasn't for me. My cousin was a Colonel in the Air Force. He's no expert on anything other then his job. I wouldn't go to him for advice about anything.

Doesn't it ever occur to you that the same problems in the effectiveness of government exist no matter what party appears to be in control?

With all of the energy you put into explaining to others the failings of Obama or whom ever it makes me scratch my head that you don't dig a little deeper. This isn't a personal attack. Please don't take it that way.

From what I have seen in the last 50 years I have been politically aware is that most of the damage to the governments effectiveness is the billions of dollars donated to the re-election of incumbants from both parties by the big special interests such as the Oil Conglomerants, Big Bank and Investment groups..etc. They gain a 1000 to one on thier investment diluting regulations by buying influence in DC. Enron...The first Mortgage meltdown.. This current one..BPs deep sea drilling without proper oversight..

None of this would have likely occured if thier bought and paid for influence in crafting todays regulations or lack of them had not happened.

I just find it discouraging that more attention is not focused on the true cause of failure in government and less on the kabuki theater we elect into the shitstorm of true graft and corruption.
 
MKDavis, please don't resort to tactics like that.

First it makes for the most boring thread possible, and generally brings any kind of meaningful discussion to a halt.

Second, it makes you look like a leftwing looney shill by employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens.

Suggestion. If you are really serious about discussing the subject take one point and put it out there. Explain why Ayers, for instance, is not an issue where Obama is concerned. Give your best evidence, and be able to rebut your opponent when he offers counter evidence.

And that would make for an interesting discussion.

What you are doing with your list is counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest.

How does asking some to substantiate their points "make the most boring thread possible" or make me "look like a leftwing loony"? This is standard debate protocol. Sorry for the boring part, but I am here to examine the truth. I am not here for your amusement. I am confused by your assertion that I am "employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens," because asking for proof of claims is standard debate protocol ACROSS the political spectrum! :confused:

My purpose is to examine fraudulent evidence, not to examine whether or not Ayers "is an issue." Ayers already "is an issue" because Obama's opponents made him an issue. Because my professional background is in deception analysis, I analyze SPECIFIC disinformation presented by such opponents. I try to avoid debates that are not based on specific evidence.

A disinformation campaign is like a house of cards, or an illusion fabricated over a framework of falsehoods. When enough support is withdrawn, the disinformation reveals its true colors. So it was with the Bush administration's Iraqi "threat" myth, which falsely claimed WMD stockpiles and mobile weapons labs largely based upon false reports from Iraqi source "Curveball." So it is with disinformation regarding the Davis-Obama relationship myth, largely based upon false reports from the conservative "Ministry of Truth" source, Cliff Kincaid's so-called "Accuracy In Media" (AIM). Their parallel functions belie any coincidence in their parallel names.

The above eight claims may be nothing but illusions, which is the reason I requested substantiation. How is seeking the truth "counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest"?:doubt: Substantiating your claim is NEVER counterproductive. While asking for substantiation may be partisan, it is never dishonest!

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I'd like to add another;

7. Who does this person "pal around with"?

Had this been fully examined in 08 we wouldn't be such a divided country today.

People are judged by the company they keep. Or should be.

The mid terms will be interesting.

I'm very interested in what you mean by this.

It's easy....Obama pals around with terrorists, racists, criminals, communists, you name it.
....And, The DICK; Cheney (the actual-President; 2000-2008) palled-around with the oil-boys.

Gee.....I wonder which-of-the-two had the biggest negative-impact on the U.S. economy?

:rolleyes:
 
MKDavis, please don't resort to tactics like that.

First it makes for the most boring thread possible, and generally brings any kind of meaningful discussion to a halt.

Second, it makes you look like a leftwing looney shill by employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens.

Suggestion. If you are really serious about discussing the subject take one point and put it out there. Explain why Ayers, for instance, is not an issue where Obama is concerned. Give your best evidence, and be able to rebut your opponent when he offers counter evidence.

And that would make for an interesting discussion.

What you are doing with your list is counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest.

How does asking some to substantiate their points "make the most boring thread possible" or make me "look like a leftwing loony"? This is standard debate protocol. Sorry for the boring part, but I am here to examine the truth. I am not here for your amusement. I am confused by your assertion that I am "employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens," because asking for proof of claims is standard debate protocol ACROSS the political spectrum! :confused:

My purpose is to examine fraudulent evidence, not to examine whether or not Ayers "is an issue." Ayers already "is an issue" because Obama's opponents made him an issue. Because my professional background is in deception analysis, I analyze SPECIFIC disinformation presented by such opponents. I try to avoid debates that are not based on specific evidence.

A disinformation campaign is like a house of cards, or an illusion fabricated over a framework of falsehoods. When enough support is withdrawn, the disinformation reveals its true colors. So it was with the Bush administration's Iraqi "threat" myth, which falsely claimed WMD stockpiles and mobile weapons labs largely based upon false reports from Iraqi source "Curveball." So it is with disinformation regarding the Davis-Obama relationship myth, largely based upon false reports from the conservative "Ministry of Truth" source, Cliff Kincaid's so-called "Accuracy In Media" (AIM). Their parallel functions belie any coincidence in their parallel names.

The above eight claims may be nothing but illusions, which is the reason I requested substantiation. How is seeking the truth "counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest"?:doubt: Substantiating your claim is NEVER counterproductive. While asking for substantiation may be partisan, it is never dishonest!

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Because those 'points' have been discussed exhaustively in thread after thread after thread on forum after forum after forum all across the internet since Obama announced his candidacy to run for President. So it is pretty disingenuous to ask another member to spend the considerable time to post all the boring details yet again when you know damn well what those details are.

By this time it isn't much different than asking somebody to describe in detail what an automobile or airplane is if one is mentioned in a post or to explain who Hitler or Castro was if he is used as a reference.

If you want to discuss 'fraudulent evidence' then do that.

I would admire you if you would take one point, such as Ayers, and explain why he shouldn't be on the list if you can do that. But since you can't do that, or I don't believe you can do that, it looks cowardly to require your opponent to write what would need to be an entire essay to support using the reference at all. More especailly a whole series of essays to support what we all know is the reason that a person or group was mentioned.
 
Interesting. I'd like to add another;

7. Who does this person "pal around with"?

Had this been fully examined in 08 we wouldn't be such a divided country today.

People are judged by the company they keep. Or should be.

The mid terms will be interesting.

I'm very interested in what you mean by this.

It's easy....Obama pals around with terrorists, racists, criminals, communists, you name it.

If the truth about these associations were made clear Obama wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting elected. That is if the MSM actually did their jobs for once.
 
MKDavis, please don't resort to tactics like that.

First it makes for the most boring thread possible, and generally brings any kind of meaningful discussion to a halt.

Second, it makes you look like a leftwing looney shill by employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens.

Suggestion. If you are really serious about discussing the subject take one point and put it out there. Explain why Ayers, for instance, is not an issue where Obama is concerned. Give your best evidence, and be able to rebut your opponent when he offers counter evidence.

And that would make for an interesting discussion.

What you are doing with your list is counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest.

How does asking some to substantiate their points "make the most boring thread possible" or make me "look like a leftwing loony"? This is standard debate protocol. Sorry for the boring part, but I am here to examine the truth. I am not here for your amusement. I am confused by your assertion that I am "employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens," because asking for proof of claims is standard debate protocol ACROSS the political spectrum! :confused:

My purpose is to examine fraudulent evidence, not to examine whether or not Ayers "is an issue." Ayers already "is an issue" because Obama's opponents made him an issue. Because my professional background is in deception analysis, I analyze SPECIFIC disinformation presented by such opponents. I try to avoid debates that are not based on specific evidence.

A disinformation campaign is like a house of cards, or an illusion fabricated over a framework of falsehoods. When enough support is withdrawn, the disinformation reveals its true colors. So it was with the Bush administration's Iraqi "threat" myth, which falsely claimed WMD stockpiles and mobile weapons labs largely based upon false reports from Iraqi source "Curveball." So it is with disinformation regarding the Davis-Obama relationship myth, largely based upon false reports from the conservative "Ministry of Truth" source, Cliff Kincaid's so-called "Accuracy In Media" (AIM). Their parallel functions belie any coincidence in their parallel names.

The above eight claims may be nothing but illusions, which is the reason I requested substantiation. How is seeking the truth "counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest"?:doubt: Substantiating your claim is NEVER counterproductive. While asking for substantiation may be partisan, it is never dishonest!

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Because those 'points' have been discussed exhaustively in thread after thread after thread on forum after forum after forum all across the internet since Obama announced his candidacy to run for President. So it is pretty disingenuous to ask another member to spend the considerable time to post all the boring details yet again when you know damn well what those details are.

By this time it isn't much different than asking somebody to describe in detail what an automobile or airplane is if one is mentioned in a post or to explain who Hitler or Castro was if he is used as a reference.

If you want to discuss 'fraudulent evidence' then do that.

I would admire you if you would take one point, such as Ayers, and explain why he shouldn't be on the list if you can do that. But since you can't do that, or I don't believe you can do that, it looks cowardly to require your opponent to write what would need to be an entire essay to support using the reference at all. More especailly a whole series of essays to support what we all know is the reason that a person or group was mentioned.

I totally disagree. A factual issue, such as defining an auto or airplane, can be easily done by quoting dictionary.com or other source substantiating one's claim. My point is that all of those specific claims at issue are LIES propagated through fraudulent blogosphere memes. None of them can be substantiated by ANY reputable source.

I am not asking the claimant to "discuss" his points. I am not interested in his opinion or speculation. I am interested in just the facts, ma'am. I am asking him to PROVE that his points are verifiable fact, not speculation, by providing primary source evidence, not opinion. THAT is the challenge I have issued!

I would LOVE to discuss fraudulent evidence, when Mudwhistle can be convinced to provide any actual evidence (not opinion or speculation)! That is why I have requested his evidence, which he has been unable to produce.

For example, Rev. Wrights speeches provide primary source evidence of Wright's anti-Zionism, but I have found no evidence of Wright's alleged anti-Semitism. Until such evidence is produced, those claiming "anti-Semitism" seem to be either ignorant of the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, or they are actually aware of the difference yet dishonestly conflate the two. Evidence of anti-Zionism is fraudulent evidence of anti-Semitism. Such deception is typical of disinformation campaigns. If Mudwhistle knows of any anti-Semitic speeches by Wright, then they would be actual evidence of anti-Semitism. Is this concept too difficult to understand?

Mudwhistle's other claims also seem to be based on fraudulent evidence, which is the reason I have been trying to examine his evidence. I suspect that his "evidence" consists of nothing more than blogger speculation, because no such empirical evidence exists. Viral disinformation campaigns thrive on unsubstantiated rumor, which may be exaggerated with each telling. This is why it is important to deconstruct such campaigns by examining their source material. Examination of AIM's source material reveals gross mispresentation in AIM's criticism of Obama, just as examination of other source material may reveal gross misrepresentation by people like Mudwhistle.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking. It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
- Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
 
Last edited:
How does asking some to substantiate their points "make the most boring thread possible" or make me "look like a leftwing loony"? This is standard debate protocol. Sorry for the boring part, but I am here to examine the truth. I am not here for your amusement. I am confused by your assertion that I am "employing a tactic deliberately used by disrupters on the Left to make sure no meaningful debate happens," because asking for proof of claims is standard debate protocol ACROSS the political spectrum! :confused:

My purpose is to examine fraudulent evidence, not to examine whether or not Ayers "is an issue." Ayers already "is an issue" because Obama's opponents made him an issue. Because my professional background is in deception analysis, I analyze SPECIFIC disinformation presented by such opponents. I try to avoid debates that are not based on specific evidence.

A disinformation campaign is like a house of cards, or an illusion fabricated over a framework of falsehoods. When enough support is withdrawn, the disinformation reveals its true colors. So it was with the Bush administration's Iraqi "threat" myth, which falsely claimed WMD stockpiles and mobile weapons labs largely based upon false reports from Iraqi source "Curveball." So it is with disinformation regarding the Davis-Obama relationship myth, largely based upon false reports from the conservative "Ministry of Truth" source, Cliff Kincaid's so-called "Accuracy In Media" (AIM). Their parallel functions belie any coincidence in their parallel names.

The above eight claims may be nothing but illusions, which is the reason I requested substantiation. How is seeking the truth "counterproductive, partisan, and dishonest"?:doubt: Substantiating your claim is NEVER counterproductive. While asking for substantiation may be partisan, it is never dishonest!

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
- Bible, John 8:32

Because those 'points' have been discussed exhaustively in thread after thread after thread on forum after forum after forum all across the internet since Obama announced his candidacy to run for President. So it is pretty disingenuous to ask another member to spend the considerable time to post all the boring details yet again when you know damn well what those details are.

By this time it isn't much different than asking somebody to describe in detail what an automobile or airplane is if one is mentioned in a post or to explain who Hitler or Castro was if he is used as a reference.

If you want to discuss 'fraudulent evidence' then do that.

I would admire you if you would take one point, such as Ayers, and explain why he shouldn't be on the list if you can do that. But since you can't do that, or I don't believe you can do that, it looks cowardly to require your opponent to write what would need to be an entire essay to support using the reference at all. More especailly a whole series of essays to support what we all know is the reason that a person or group was mentioned.

I totally disagree. A factual issue, such as defining an auto or airplane, can be easily done by quoting dictionary.com or other source substantiating one's claim. My point is that all of those specific claims at issue are LIES propagated through fraudulent blogosphere memes. None of them can be substantiated by ANY reputable source.

I am not asking the claimant to "discuss" his points. I am not interested in his opinion or speculation. I am interested in just the facts, ma'am. I am asking him to PROVE that his points are verifiable fact, not speculation, by providing primary source evidence, not opinion. THAT is the challenge I have issued!

I would LOVE to discuss fraudulent evidence, when Mudwhistle can be convinced to provide any actual evidence (not opinion or speculation)! That is why I have requested his evidence, which he has been unable to produce.

For example, Rev. Wrights speeches provide primary source evidence of Wright's anti-Zionism, but I have found no evidence of Wright's alleged anti-Semitism. Until such evidence is produced, those claiming "anti-Semitism" seem to be either ignorant of the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, or they are actually aware of the difference yet dishonestly conflate the two. Evidence of anti-Zionism is fraudulent evidence of anti-Semitism. Such deception is typical of disinformation campaigns. If Mudwhistle knows of any anti-Semitic speeches by Wright, then they would be actual evidence of anti-Semitism. Is this concept too difficult to understand?

Mudwhistle's other claims also seem to be based on fraudulent evidence, which is the reason I have been trying to examine his evidence. I suspect that his "evidence" consists of nothing more than blogger speculation, because no such empirical evidence exists.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking. It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
- Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

This is not a court of law, it is not a scientific symposium, and it is not a military classroom. It is a message board offering a free exchange of fast moving ideas and opinions. If I quote somebody or make a statement of fact that is not common knowledge, yes I expect to provide a link to support my comment. I don't expect to have to bore everybody else with a 200-word dissertation on everything I write.

If they are lies, then YOU show how they are lies. I personally believe the proponderance of evidence supports them being mostly true. But if you have evidence they are lies, then YOU post that evidence. I suggest you do it one at a time if you want any meaningful discussion, else it will be as boring, tedious, and ineffectual as you asking your opponent to post 50 pages of evidence for a comment that has already been adequately documented with at least hundreds of pages of postings over the last couple of years.
 
Because those 'points' have been discussed exhaustively in thread after thread after thread on forum after forum after forum all across the internet since Obama announced his candidacy to run for President. So it is pretty disingenuous to ask another member to spend the considerable time to post all the boring details yet again when you know damn well what those details are.

By this time it isn't much different than asking somebody to describe in detail what an automobile or airplane is if one is mentioned in a post or to explain who Hitler or Castro was if he is used as a reference.

If you want to discuss 'fraudulent evidence' then do that.

I would admire you if you would take one point, such as Ayers, and explain why he shouldn't be on the list if you can do that. But since you can't do that, or I don't believe you can do that, it looks cowardly to require your opponent to write what would need to be an entire essay to support using the reference at all. More especailly a whole series of essays to support what we all know is the reason that a person or group was mentioned.

I totally disagree. A factual issue, such as defining an auto or airplane, can be easily done by quoting dictionary.com or other source substantiating one's claim. My point is that all of those specific claims at issue are LIES propagated through fraudulent blogosphere memes. None of them can be substantiated by ANY reputable source.

I am not asking the claimant to "discuss" his points. I am not interested in his opinion or speculation. I am interested in just the facts, ma'am. I am asking him to PROVE that his points are verifiable fact, not speculation, by providing primary source evidence, not opinion. THAT is the challenge I have issued!

I would LOVE to discuss fraudulent evidence, when Mudwhistle can be convinced to provide any actual evidence (not opinion or speculation)! That is why I have requested his evidence, which he has been unable to produce.

For example, Rev. Wrights speeches provide primary source evidence of Wright's anti-Zionism, but I have found no evidence of Wright's alleged anti-Semitism. Until such evidence is produced, those claiming "anti-Semitism" seem to be either ignorant of the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, or they are actually aware of the difference yet dishonestly conflate the two. Evidence of anti-Zionism is fraudulent evidence of anti-Semitism. Such deception is typical of disinformation campaigns. If Mudwhistle knows of any anti-Semitic speeches by Wright, then they would be actual evidence of anti-Semitism. Is this concept too difficult to understand?

Mudwhistle's other claims also seem to be based on fraudulent evidence, which is the reason I have been trying to examine his evidence. I suspect that his "evidence" consists of nothing more than blogger speculation, because no such empirical evidence exists.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking. It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
- Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

This is not a court of law, it is not a scientific symposium, and it is not a military classroom. It is a message board offering a free exchange of fast moving ideas and opinions. If I quote somebody or make a statement of fact that is not common knowledge, yes I expect to provide a link to support my comment. I don't expect to have to bore everybody else with a 200-word dissertation on everything I write.

If they are lies, then YOU show how they are lies. I personally believe the proponderance of evidence supports them being mostly true. But if you have evidence they are lies, then YOU post that evidence. I suggest you do it one at a time if you want any meaningful discussion, else it will be as boring, tedious, and ineffectual as you asking your opponent to post 50 pages of evidence for a comment that has already been adequately documented with at least hundreds of pages of postings over the last couple of years.

Sorry, buddy, but "you show how they are lies" is not how debate is done. Burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top