<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>Care to discuss John McCain's relationships?<BR>
<BR>
Where should we start? His professional relationships with Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac? His religious relationships with Rod Parsley and another pastor whose name escapes me for the moment?<BR>
<BR>
Plea, No. Make the choice. Where should I begin?<BR>
<BR>
Now, if you will excuse me. I have a Farmers' Market to attend.<BR>
<BR>
Tom Hansen<BR>
Moscow, Idaho<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:06:29 -0600<BR>> From: no.weatherman@gmail.com<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama<BR>> <BR>> Dr. Campbell,<BR>> <BR>> I don't buy your statement that you didn't read the whole post. You<BR>> obviously read looking for a "gotcha" and you found one — I didn't<BR>> quote the exact words of Dylan correctly. Thank you for pointing that<BR>> out. Perhaps we can call it the fallacy of majoring on the minors, or<BR>> harping on the irrelevant, because my misstatement did not affect the<BR>> content of the post. But that's all right, if it makes you feel<BR>> better, because you didn't misquote me — you merely fabricated<BR>> statements and imputed them to me. The logical error you're committing<BR>> is seeing words that don't exist. I rely upon your expertise to find<BR>> the name for this fallacy.<BR>> <BR>> For example, I never used the word McCain and I never said Obama is<BR>> "bad" or that you shouldn't "vote" for him, etc., just as I never<BR>> suggested, implied, or concluded that "it is OK to circumvent the<BR>> democratic process and cheat in getting a president elected as long as<BR>> your side wins." I never tried to justify Liddy's actions; in fact, I<BR>> wrote just the opposite. But these are all words and ideas that you<BR>> imputed to me. And just in case you're tempted to hurl a few more<BR>> personal insults at me, saying you could not understand the meaning of<BR>> my post, please note that Keely followed my point as did Tom and the<BR>> few folks who contacted me offlist. Therefore, I will try it one more<BR>> time.<BR>> <BR>> In my first post I applied your standard of disassociation to Barack<BR>> Hussein Obama and his longtime friend Bill Ayers. I segued to get the<BR>> subject back on point, which seems to be where you lost me. I tried to<BR>> confront you with facts that no liberal wants to address. These are<BR>> facts that no one in the msm has covered, probably for the same reason<BR>> no liberal wants to address them.<BR>> <BR>> 1. My first point was that Obama has a long-standing personal and<BR>> professional relationship with Bill Ayers.<BR>> <BR>> 2. My second point was that msm refuses to cover this fact and other<BR>> disturbing facts about Obama.<BR>> <BR>> For example, it's a simple historical fact that Bill Ayers is a<BR>> notorious domestic terrorist who intended to overthrow the US<BR>> government by violent force and it's a simple fact that Bill Ayers<BR>> launched Barrack Hussein Obama's political career from his living<BR>> room. It's a fact that Obama has written two memoirs and neither one<BR>> of them mentions his first and primary executive experience at CAC,<BR>> which raises honest questions about his role at CAC but apparently<BR>> doesn't register with you or any other liberal on this list. It's a<BR>> fact that a prominent member of the Democratic Party is challenging<BR>> Obama's legal standing to run for POTUS because of his citizenships in<BR>> other countries, but some people are satisfied with a jpg image file<BR>> on the worldwide web. Maybe they're still stuck on the bridge to<BR>> nowhere.<BR>> <BR>> Let me give you a different kind of example. Let's say that you and I<BR>> both agree with candidate X across the board on every position except<BR>> for one minor point — he's a member in good standing of the KKK and he<BR>> proudly dons his robe in public. You can cry "guilt by association"<BR>> all you want, but I'm not going to vote for that man because this is<BR>> where you're wrong. As Kurtz said, it's not guilt by association; it's<BR>> guilt by participation. HE VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATES IN A RACIST<BR>> ORGANIZATION.<BR>> <BR>> This is the sad reality of Barrack Hussein Obama that no one on the<BR>> left wants to acknowledge — especially the msm and not a few folks on<BR>> this list. Obama was a member in good standing of a virulent<BR>> anti-Semitic, anti-American church for 20 years, yet everyone gives<BR>> him a pass when he claims he never heard any of the toxic vitriol<BR>> spewing from Rev. Wright.<BR>> <BR>> Obama served side by side on CAC's board of directors with its<BR>> founder, Bill Ayers, who just happens to be a domestic terrorist, yet<BR>> everyone gives him a pass when he claims, "he's just a guy who lives<BR>> in my neighborhood."<BR>> <BR>> Obama blew millions of dollars on school reform when he served on<BR>> CAC's board of directors, yet everyone gives him a pass, which is<BR>> especially disturbing given the number of people on this list who are<BR>> education oriented. If Obama's opponent had thrown millions down a rat<BR>> hole in a failed school-reform program, this list would go sideways<BR>> with criticism. But no one says anything, as though it never happened.<BR>> <BR>> The list of Obama's failures is staggering and the list of questions<BR>> surrounding his background is equally staggering, yet few people on<BR>> this list appear to care and none of the msm care.<BR>> <BR>> Tell me Dr. Campbell, how do you account for this apparent black hole<BR>> in the political universe?<BR>> <BR>> I ask this question remembering the words of Dylan:<BR>> <BR>> "We live in a political world<BR>> The one we can see and feel<BR>> But there's no one to check<BR>> It's all a stacked deck<BR>> We all know for sure that it's real." ("Political World")<BR>> <BR>> <BR></body>
</html>