[Vision2020] Barack Obama's Muslim Childhood

Chasuk chasuk at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 16:15:02 PDT 2008


On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 13:47, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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"

You have provided a multitude of examples. I evade nothing, but I'm
not going to cut-and-paste your own words for you.  Or is another
No.Weatherman to blame?  Don't be disingenuous.

> 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.

Yada yada yada yada.  And the truth about the man can more clearly be
established by only examining the hostile evidence, of course.  You
take the cowards way out again.

> 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.

Respect?  That's what you call avoidance and obfuscation?

> 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.

You guess?  Sound, lucid, that.  You wouldn't have to guess if you
would just read.

> 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.

You need to polish your reading comprehension, or pay more attention.
I condemn you for passing judgment on words that you haven't read
(Obama's), and I condemn you for not listening to Wright's own
testimony.  Either would take too much intellectual integrity.

Let's suppose that we were both writing a biography of the same man.
You write a book citing only his opponents.  You don't reference any
of his autobiographical work.  His proponents you also ignore.  In my
book, I cite opponents, proponents and memoirs.  Which do you think
would give the less biased picture, the greater understanding?

I know that you have a problem with personal impressions, because of
course they never have any relevance, but I ask that you take a stab
at answering the question, anyway.

Unless you actually maintain that the truth about a person can only be
accurately established if one sticks solely to the hostile evidence?

Chas



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list