[Vision2020] Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood

[No Weatherman]

>> Please give one example.
>
> The majority of your posts document this for me, including this one.
> Based on unfavorable soundbites -- selected by his foes -- you have
> come to conclusions that predispose you to ignoring the larger
> picture.

I asked you to give one example. One simple example. And you evaded
the question to make more hasty generalizations which do not
constitute "an example"

> Have you read his books?  Nope, because your mind is already closed to
> the possibility of learning anything that might contradict the
> prejudices you have already formed.  Obama didn't write "Dreams from
> My Father," you conclude, because Cashill presents amateurish,
> unconvincing evidence that it is so, and it pleases you to believe it,
> so you do.

Ignore Cashill for the moment.

Did it ever occur to you that autobiographies are self-serving
exercises in bloviation? I care what Obama says about himself less
than I care what you say about him. I have argued from the beginning
that the truth about the man is much more important than anything
anyone says about him.

You disagree with me.

I would prefer to leave it there but if you want this conversation to
spin off into the world of imputing intentions to one another, please
let me know. If not, I'll continue to show you the respect that you
refuse to show me.

> I've read McCain, AKA his ghostwriter Mark Salter, and I learned that
> there is a lot to respect about McCain.  You decide, quote: "If Ayers
> wrote Dreams — as all the evidence indicates — then the only
>> view it reflects is Obama's close bond with Ayers."  And you know this from your careful non-reading.
>
> You write:
>
>> The caliber, content and style differentials between his two books is
>> too great for him to have written Dreams."
>
> And you know this from your careful non-reading.

No, not knowing the page count of Dreams, this is only a guess. But I
would guess that Cashill and Heiden have amassed more pages analyzing
Dreams than Ayers did writing it. IOW, this is an argument based on
comparisons — Cashill's comparisons of Dreams and other works by
Ayers, Heiden's careful examination of the Introduction, and my
appeals to the size of their efforts compared to the actual work.

Plus the bloviating thing above.

>> I have not judged the package based on soundbites and you cannot give
>> one example to prove this assertion
>
> See above.
>
> You write:
>
>> I saw all I need to see of Wright when his son — Barack Obama — threw
>> him overboard without a life vest or life boat, abandoning him to
>> drown in a watery abyss of anti-Semite America-hating racism.
>
> And:
>
>> If jettisoning Wright was good enough for Obama, it's good enough for me.
>
> Oooh, that's some fine logic.  You don't have to fairly evaluate
> Wright because a man you pathologically distrust publicly disavowed
> him.
>
> This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and
> squealing: "Neener neener neener!  I don't have to listen to evidence,
> and you can't make me!"
>
> You can make all of the excuses you want, but your intellectual
> cowardice is showing.
>
> Meanwhile, you attempt to drown us in anti-Obama deluge.  Do I smell a
> hypocrite?

Yes.

And your odor is most unpleasant.

You condemn me for not listening to Obama's (alleged) words in Dreams
and you condemn me for listening to Obama's certain words regarding
Wright.

Yes, you are a hypocrite. You want it both ways and you want to hold
me to standards that you refuse to live by.

>> I wish I was as thorough as you.
>
> Really?  Then examine the evidence that I have provided you, instead
> of engaging in this one-sided self-deceit.
>
> Oh, sarcasm, right?  In which case you are implicitly acknowledging
> your one-sided lack of thoroughness, your bias.  Thank you for finally
> being honest.

You saw all that in one sarcastic line?

> Me:
>
>>>  You care only about confirming and defending your own prejudices, and
>>>  you wonder why some people call you racist.  I'm not calling you a
>>>  racist, but it is an understandable perception.  When a man makes it
>>>  obvious that he intends to argue only for his own bias, without
>>>  examining the evidence presented him, people reasonably wonder, what
>>>  bias is he trying so desperately to safeguard?
>
> You:
>
>> I defy you to defend your last sentence with real proof — which does
>> not include your feelings or experiences.
>
> My feelings and emotions aside, my last sentence you have defended
> quite handily for me, and continue to do so with every sputtering
> protest that your massaged excerpts equal a full and honest
> investigation.

Me, I will leave my personal impressions of you out of the
conversation. I think it's better to thank you for the exchange. We
don't agree but I'm beginning to put some things together.