Have you stopped beating your wife? (Please respond with a yes or no answer.)

 

Ahhh...I understand now. I don't believe that any of my questions are such. Here is what someone with your convictions could have easily answered.

 

1. Does it seem logical that Obama's motivation for visiting wounded troops stems from the opportunity for photo ops and campaigning, when he has made many such trips to other facilities in the past? no

 

2. Having made such trips in the past, do you think that he was unaware of the stipulations involving campaigning in those areas? no

 

3. Do you think it is possible that his campaign forgein policy advisor wanted to visit the troops because being a retired Air Force major general that he has a great deal of respect and admiration for them, as opposed to just wanting to campaign? yes

 

Do any of those answers mean that your premise was necessarily wrong? No. It's possible that Obama's sole reason for wanting to visit the troops in Germany was political and his decision to not visit had to do with not being able to make it so. You could be right.

 

However, logic (which I beg to differ CAN be used to describe liberals and Obama) says that there is more to the story when in all of his other instances of visiting wounded soldiers did not involve any of his campaign staff. Simply admitting that this is possible does not make it so.

HB, do you realize that you have contradicted your own premise? To wit:

 

Thread title:

 

 

 

From your post #17:

Which is it? Are McCain's facts literally true or are they literally not true? Have you flip-flopped with rapidity that would turn Obama green with envy? :lol:

 

If you can't tell, it's obvious that those are not my words. I even posted links.

 

Fact of the matter is, the insinuations that McCain's ad makes are NOT true. While Obama did cancel the trip, did go to the gym, the reasons he canceled the trip and the insinuations made by the McCain camp are what is false. Is that clear? And I never said that his facts were "literally not true". The quote from the first post said that his "attacks" were "literally not true".

Ahhh...I understand now. I don't believe that any of my questions are such. Here is what someone with your convictions could have easily answered.

 

 

 

Do any of those answers mean that your premise was necessarily wrong? No. It's possible that Obama's sole reason for wanting to visit the troops in Germany was political and his decision to not visit had to do with not being able to make it so. You could be right.

 

However, logic (which I beg to differ CAN be used to describe liberals and Obama) says that there is more to the story when in all of his other instances of visiting wounded soldiers did not involve any of his campaign staff. Simply admitting that this is possible does not make it so.

Had I answered the questions that you asked in the way that you wanted me to answer them, then it would have given a false impression that I agreed with the criticism of McCain's ad.

 

It is possible that after losing to JFK in a landslide in 1960, Barry Goldwater led a secret Republican project to to create stealth conservative candidates to run in the 21st century and Barry Obama was one of the lucky selectees. This scenario is possible but it is not a likely scenario.

 

Phrasing questions to produce misleading answers is the job of public opinion pollsters driven by a political agenda.

 

If Obama is firmly opposed to reparations, then there should be a clear statement of that position, even if it is followed by a clarification. If he is firmly opposed to reparations, as the term is commonly understood, then it would be easy to have one of the friendly members of his media entourage to ask him the question to allow him to answer it directly.

 

An impartial media would have already asked both Obama and McCain if they would veto a reparations bill if it crossed their desk as president.

If you can't tell, it's obvious that those are not my words. I even posted links.

 

Fact of the matter is, the insinuations that McCain's ad makes are NOT true. While Obama did cancel the trip, did go to the gym, the reasons he canceled the trip and the insinuations made by the McCain camp are what is false. Is that clear? And I never said that his facts were "literally not true". The quote from the first post said that his "attacks" were "literally not true".

Generally when one pulls a quote to support his position, he agrees with what he posts. I hope that you can see why I was understandably confused by the contradictory statements.

We need to cool off in this thread or there will be those on the outside looking in. We are getting way too personal.