USSA

[x5GuyInLA]

Originally Posted by JCL

I realize that you were asking someone else, but did you read the link I provided earlier? Maybe it wasn't independent enough for you. Here is the Snopes link debunking this claim.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/security.asp

So, let's recount. Three lawyers, one of them ex-military, all with a background in security checks. A non-partisan site. Covered on another non-partisan site. That articulates one opinion on the issue there.

Or, we could go with three anonymous guys who know some people in the military, used to work at an aviation company, and have a relative who knows something. Yeah, that'll work.

Come on guys, you've got to do better than that. I would love to believe you. I have no personal stake in this matter. Just give me something, anything, to go on here. I am pretty sure that criminal activity will cause you to not pass a security check. So, you could start out with a list of convictions. Failing that, let's hear something equally compelling. If it is so clear-cut an issue, it can't be difficult.

PS: X5Guy: Yes, I believe Obama has faults. We could start with his approach to free trade, his intelligence, etc, and go from there. But the question was why he couldn't get a security clearance. And accusing all Obama supporters out there of being blind fanatical sheep is insulting. Yes, I am sure there are some sheep, on both sides.

your politifacts site only talks about Ayers, what about his other affiliations? when i first posted, the original question asked how much of it was true. let's say security clearance wasn't true, what about the other points? i know there are sheep on both sides, and i don't mean to call all obama supporters sheep, but pratically every obama supporter i talk to doesn't give any logical reason other than he's not republican. maybe it's because i live in california. i want to believe obama will be good for us (we went to the same high school in hawaii, so i can't imagine him being completely liberal), but all i seem to encounter are people who say that his flip flops are nuances and can't see that he will change what he says based on what he thinks people want to hear.

[chonko]

This saga with the secret video about Khalidi and Obama reminds of Norm Coleman and the British MP George Galloway in 2003.
During the hearing, Norm Coleman claimed that he had evidence in front of him to prove that George Galloway got oil deals from Saddam Hussein.
George Galloway called him on it, looking straight at Norm Coleman, Galloway said" Senator you have nothing on me". I remember how stupid Norm Coleman looked because frankly speaking he had nothing other than some cooked up rubbish.

This episode of this soap opera seems to have the same set of producers- it is all complete rubbish.

[x5GuyInLA]

Originally Posted by chonko

This saga with the secret video about Khalidi and Obama reminds of Norm Coleman and the British MP George Galloway in 2003.
During the hearing, Norm Coleman claimed that he had evidence in front of him to prove that George Galloway got oil deals from Saddam Hussein.
George Galloway called him on it, looking straight at Norm Coleman, Galloway said" Senator you have nothing on me". I remember how stupid Norm Coleman looked because frankly speaking he had nothing other than some cooked up rubbish.

This episode of this soap opera seems to have the same set of producers- it is all complete rubbish.

This might be complete rubbish, except for the fact that it's the LA Times who says they have the tape. They are not only a liberal publication, but have also endorsed Obama. Why would they be trying to cook something up on someone they support? If there really isn't anything to worry about on the tape, why wouldn't they just show it to shut everyone up? And if they are protecting their source, why doesn't the source want it shown unless there is something that would bring doubt to Obama?

[FSETH]

Originally Posted by JCL

I realize that you were asking someone else, but did you read the link I provided earlier? Maybe it wasn't independent enough for you. Here is the Snopes link debunking this claim.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/security.asp

So, let's recount. Three lawyers, one of them ex-military, all with a background in security checks. A non-partisan site. Covered on another non-partisan site. That articulates one opinion on the issue there.

Or, we could go with three anonymous guys who know some people in the military, used to work at an aviation company, and have a relative who knows something. Yeah, that'll work.

Come on guys, you've got to do better than that. I would love to believe you. I have no personal stake in this matter. Just give me something, anything, to go on here. I am pretty sure that criminal activity will cause you to not pass a security check. So, you could start out with a list of convictions. Failing that, let's hear something equally compelling. If it is so clear-cut an issue, it can't be difficult.

PS: X5Guy: Yes, I believe Obama has faults. We could start with his approach to free trade, his intelligence, etc, and go from there. But the question was why he couldn't get a security clearance. And accusing all Obama supporters out there of being blind fanatical sheep is insulting. Yes, I am sure there are some sheep, on both sides.

Both of the links you provided only dispute one aspect of the originally posted slide show. You have to do better than that. What about the other 99% of the slide show?

I said that parts of the original post were not correct, but there is a lot of truth in there as well. It is up to you if you want to believe the parts that are true or ignore them. At the end of the day, nobody here is going to convince you otherwise.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by FSETH

Both of the links you provided only dispute one aspect of the originally posted slide show. You have to do better than that. What about the other 99% of the slide show?

I said that parts of the original post were not correct, but there is a lot of truth in there as well. It is up to you if you want to believe the parts that are true or ignore them. At the end of the day, nobody here is going to convince you otherwise.

Fair comment. I wasn't commenting on the originally posted slide show, I had stopped it after several frames. I was commenting on the 8 or 9 posts talking about his inability to get a security clearance.

Since you asked, I went back and watched the slide show. I think I threw up in my mouth. It is very worrisome that there are people who think so small, who may actually have the right to vote. I don't think it is worth disputing the 10 or so complete fabrications that I saw up front, and I don't think anyone wants to see the counters. As I've posted in the past, go to independent fact-checking sites and see what they say about some of those claims.

Have a great election day, and may the democratic collective will of the people prevail. That presumes that collective (in this particular context) isn't a socialist word, as has been claimed previously. Also note the intentional use of the lower case d in democratic.

Cheers

[FSETH]

Originally Posted by JCL

Fair comment. I wasn't commenting on the originally posted slide show, I had stopped it after several frames. I was commenting on the 8 or 9 posts talking about his inability to get a security clearance.

Since you asked, I went back and watched the slide show. I think I threw up in my mouth. It is very worrisome that there are people who think so small, who may actually have the right to vote. I don't think it is worth disputing the 10 or so complete fabrications that I saw up front, and I don't think anyone wants to see the counters. As I've posted in the past, go to independent fact-checking sites and see what they say about some of those claims.

Have a great election day, and may the democratic collective will of the people prevail. That presumes that collective (in this particular context) isn't a socialist word, as has been claimed previously. Also note the intentional use of the lower case d in democratic.

Cheers

Like I said, If you don't want to believe the things that are actually true in that slide show that is your choice. Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed. Nobody can make you believe anything other than what you want to. You have just as much a right to ignore the things that are true as much as anyone else (i.e. blondeboi). There were many points in that article that you can not refute.

[Quicksilver]

Interesting conclusion;

You did say that "Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed."
If that's the case then why would anyone place any credibility in the rest
of what is being purported from a source if they support those so called truths with lies?

Don't take it personally but i find it difficult to latch on to hyperbole. The truth should stand on it's own without the support of lies.

Originally Posted by FSETH

Like I said, If you don't want to believe the things that are actually true in that slide show that is your choice. Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed. Nobody can make you believe anything other than what you want to. You have just as much a right to ignore the things that are true as much as anyone else (i.e. blondeboi). There were many points in that article that you can not refute.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Interesting conclusion;

You did say that "Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed."
If that's the case then why would anyone place any credibility in the rest
of what is being purported from a source if they support those so called truths with lies?

Don't take it personally but i find it difficult to latch on to hyperbole. The truth should stand on it's own without the support of lies.

FSETH: That is my premise. Once I got up to 8 or 10 items that were demonstrably not true in that slide show, I ran out of will to go search on the rest. Anything that is so one-sided may still have some true items buried within it, I agree. It is just that it is so hard to find the nuggets of truth that it isn't worth the trouble. The authors eliminated themselves from serious consideration or debate by their hyperbole. I think Quick hit it right on the head.

[FSETH]

Originally Posted by JCL

FSETH: That is my premise. Once I got up to 8 or 10 items that were demonstrably not true in that slide show, I ran out of will to go search on the rest. Anything that is so one-sided may still have some true items buried within it, I agree. It is just that it is so hard to find the nuggets of truth that it isn't worth the trouble. The authors eliminated themselves from serious consideration or debate by their hyperbole. I think Quick hit it right on the head.

The problem with that is that you only disputed one of the numerous claims in the slide show. There is a lot of truth to it.

I don't think it is a black or white issue. There are some shades of grey here. It would be arrogant on my part to assume thet every single point in the slide show is 100% correct and can't be disputed. I simply said that there is truth in the slide show and if you can't admit that then you are either misinformed, lying to yourself or in complete denial.

To insinuate that this is 100% bogus or mostly bogus because it may not be 100% true is just wrong. If that is what you think then please explain why or prove each point to the contrary. Don't just attack one aspect of a 25+ point topic and assume that it is 100% incorrect.

I understand questioning things and that is why I was the one who said it is not 100% true. If you think that it is 100% incorrect, then you are as much of a sheep as the people who think it is 100% accurate, IMO.

I will have to say, that it is actually a little ironic that the two defending this the most either can't or won't vote.

[x5GuyInLA]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Interesting conclusion;

You did say that "Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed."
If that's the case then why would anyone place any credibility in the rest
of what is being purported from a source if they support those so called truths with lies?

Don't take it personally but i find it difficult to latch on to hyperbole. The truth should stand on it's own without the support of lies.

the same can be said about some of things that have been said about McCain. Does that mean anything that is true loses it's credibility because of the untrue things?