It is my informed opinion and will leave it at that.

 

So what you stated as FACT is merely an opinion. You do know that he does now recieve routine security briefings simply because he is a candidate?

 

Barack sat on a board with William Ayers. That is your only notable "association." McCain's WIFE is connected to the mob and Sara Palin's HUSBAND belongs to a successionist "club." Why would their associations not disqualify them? McCains lead campaign man lobbied for Sadam - he is a known terrorist as well. Why is he allowed to hold any sway over anyone?

So what you stated as FACT is merely an opinion. You do know that he does now recieve routine security briefings simply because he is a candidate?

 

Barack sat on a board with William Ayers. That is your only notable "association." McCain's WIFE is connected to the mob and Sara Palin's HUSBAND belongs to a successionist "club." Why would their associations not disqualify them? McCains lead campaign man lobbied for Sadam - he is a known terrorist as well. Why is he allowed to hold any sway over anyone?

People state opinions here all the time. The only way that one could say as a matter of fact that Obama could not get a TS clearance would be for him to apply for one and be rejected.

 

IMO, Obama would have zero chance getting a job for the FBI, CIA, or getting a TS clearance. None. If I am wrong, then the great majority of Americans would qualify for TS clearances and I do not believe that to be the case. (Another opinion - please do not ask for a link.)

So what you stated as FACT is merely an opinion. You do know that he does now recieve routine security briefings simply because he is a candidate?

 

Barack sat on a board with William Ayers. That is your only notable "association." McCain's WIFE is connected to the mob and Sara Palin's HUSBAND belongs to a successionist "club." Why would their associations not disqualify them? McCains lead campaign man lobbied for Sadam - he is a known terrorist as well. Why is he allowed to hold any sway over anyone?

So now when someone posts something it's FACT? Give me a break. Do I now have to put a disclaimer on the end of the posts?

 

And BHO's association with Ayers is a little more involved then your "sat no a board".

So now when someone posts something it's FACT? Give me a break. Do I now have to put a disclaimer on the end of the posts?

 

And BHO's association with Ayers is a little more involved then your "sat no a board".

 

When you say - Obama would not get TS clearance and you don't put "in my opinion" the assumption is that you based that on something more than your opinion. Too often there are unfounded statements made on this board that go unchallenged. There is no basis in fact that Obama would not meet security clearance, there is opinion but that is not how it was presented.

 

The Ayers association is no more than that. There has been innuendos and false claims, but nobody has shown that it was any more than that.

When you say - Obama would not get TS clearance and you don't put "in my opinion" the assumption is that you based that on something more than your opinion. Too often there are unfounded statements made on this board that go unchallenged. There is no basis in fact that Obama would not meet security clearance, there is opinion but that is not how it was presented.

 

The Ayers association is no more than that. There has been innuendos and false claims, but nobody has shown that it was any more than that.

So if I say Green Bay will beat Indy and I don't put "in my opinion" then I am stating a fact? Funniest thing I have heard today.

 

Again, you are wrong. Ayers hosted a political coming out for Obama at Ayer's home. You know who Obama is because of Ayers. Why don't you do some research on Ayers and his nut ball wife. They are both lunitics and the fact they are so respected in Chicago tells me all I need to know about the windy city. How about you actually research these things instead of writing them off right wing attacks.

So if I say Green Bay will beat Indy and I don't put "in my opinion" then I am stating a fact? Funniest thing I have heard today.

 

Again, you are wrong. Ayers hosted a political coming out for Obama at Ayer's home. You know who Obama is because of Ayers. Why don't you do some research on Ayers and his nut ball wife. They are both lunitics and the fact they are so respected in Chicago tells me all I need to know about the windy city. How about you actually research these things instead of writing them off right wing attacks.

 

Because they are right wing attacks. why do I need to research Ayers, he is not running for president and will not have anything to do with the Barack presidency. (so as this not to be my opinion, it was clearly stated last night). Even McCain said he doesn't care about Ayers - stated it in the debate last night as well.

 

But lets say they are friends . . . why should that scare me when Obama becomes president? Is Obama going to let him into the White House to Blow it Up?

When you say - Obama would not get TS clearance and you don't put "in my opinion" the assumption is that you based that on something more than your opinion.

Fair enough, let's apply those rules to your post.

 

Too often there are unfounded statements made on this board that go unchallenged.

Opinion - where is the link(s) to prove your assertion?

 

There is no basis in fact that Obama would not meet security clearance, there is opinion but that is not how it was presented.

Another opinion. You do not know whether or not there is "no basis in fact" and neither does any other poster.

 

The Ayers association is no more than that. There has been innuendos and false claims, but nobody has shown that it was any more than that.

Another opinion. Your burden of proof is as arbitrary as anybody else's and in many, many people's minds the association between Ayers and Obama is much, much more than Obama has acknowledged and that fact has been established to our satisfaction.

 

My point is that most of the things posted in this forum are opinions. Jumping on every opinion with which you disagree and demanding proof or supporting links is simply not reasonable unless you are willing to reciprocate. As mcpapa has noted in another thread, I have been a pretty prolific poster. I often provide links in one thread or post the first time that I address an issue and then do not repost the information in subsequent posts.

 

Refuting posters' claims by providing links to support your own opinions is much more effective than constantly requesting links, many of which have already been provided in previous discussions of the same topics. Take it FWIW.

Fair enough, let's apply those rules to your post.

 

Opinion - where is the link(s) to prove your assertion?

 

Another opinion. You do not know whether or not there is "no basis in fact" and neither does any other poster.

 

Another opinion. Your burden of proof is as arbitrary as anybody else's and in many, many people's minds the association between Ayers and Obama is much, much more than Obama has acknowledged and that fact has been established to our satisfaction.

 

My point is that most of the things posted in this forum are opinions. Jumping on every opinion with which you disagree and demanding proof or supporting links is simply not reasonable unless you are willing to reciprocate. As mcpapa has noted in another thread, I have been a pretty prolific poster. I often provide links in one thread or post the first time that I address an issue and then do not repost the information in subsequent posts. As it appeart the majority of the people in the country are doing at this time.

 

Refuting posters' claims by providing links to support your own opinions is much more effective than constantly requesting links, many of which have already been provided in previous discussions of the same topics. Take it FWIW.

 

What you have now done is set up a fallacious argument. You make a statement based on opinion, I ask for facts to support it, and you ask for facts to refute your opinion. You have done what the supporters of McCain have continued to do - put out false or misleading statements and when called on it they ask the accuser to prove them wrong. If you are going to make the statement you need to prove its veracity or I will continue to take it as fallacious and a scare tactit to get someone to vote for McCain. As it stands, I think most of the population will now agree with me.

What you have now done is set up a fallacious argument. You make a statement based on opinion, I ask for facts to support it, and you ask for facts to refute your opinion. You have done what the supporters of McCain have continued to do - put out false or misleading statements and when called on it they ask the accuser to prove them wrong. If you are going to make the statement you need to prove its veracity or I will continue to take it as fallacious and a scare tactit to get someone to vote for McCain. As it stands, I think most of the population will now agree with me.

What I do not do is hound people for links when they give a heartfelt opinion and simply omit the "IMO" in their post when the post is obviously something that cannot be proven or disproven. The Ayers links have been well documented in several threads by multiple posters. Obama lied last night and there are documents and pictures to prove it. Here, for example, is a picture of Obama training ACORN community organizers:

 

 

Obama's relationship with ACORN is not limited to acting as its lawyer for one lawsuit. After the picture above and the article in which it appeared surfaced, Obama's "Stop the Smears" web site was scrubbed so that instead of denying that he ever trained ACORN, the denial now says that Obama was never hired by ACORN to train its community organizers. However, that did not stop The One from deliberately understating his association with ACORN last night.

What was this thread about?

 

This thread is a perfect example of why I can't stand coming into the P&R forum very often. - Fact.

What was this thread about?

 

This thread is a perfect example of why I can't stand coming into the P&R forumn very often. - Fact.

You're not alone.

What was this thread about?

 

This thread is a perfect example of why I can't stand coming into the P&R forum very often. - Fact.

 

It could be about any number ofthings, really. ACORN, Ayers, lipstick, Kenya, birth certificates, Rezko, socialism, socialists, communism, Arabs, terrorists, or even Muslims. What you have to understand is that no matter the thread topic, you are free to incorporate any and/or all the ideas listed above into the thread.

So if I say Green Bay will beat Indy and I don't put "in my opinion" then I am stating a fact? Funniest thing I have heard today.

 

Again, you are wrong. Ayers hosted a political coming out for Obama at Ayer's home. You know who Obama is because of Ayers. Why don't you do some research on Ayers and his nut ball wife. They are both lunitics and the fact they are so respected in Chicago tells me all I need to know about the windy city. How about you actually research these things instead of writing them off right wing attacks.

 

Whoa, I do not know one single person who respects either of them and I am sitting across the street from Mayor Daley right now.

 

The Chicago political machine is not the boy scouts but William Ayers is not their poster boy, either.

It could be about any number ofthings, really. ACORN, Ayers, lipstick, Kenya, birth certificates, Rezko, socialism, socialists, communism, Arabs, terrorists, or even Muslims. What you have to understand is that no matter the thread topic, you are free to incorporate any and/or all the ideas listed above into the thread.

 

Don't forget text messages...my personal favorite.

You're not alone.

 

Me three. I'm planning on checking in more regularly after the election.

 

Of course, it could be a month (or several months) after that before it's "safe". The reaction to the election results should keep it going for a while, and if its really close and there's some controversy...

 

Uh oh.