Originally Posted by tonton
Assuming that all of that is true, is any of that illegal? Immoral? Questionable?
No. It's guilt by association. Nothing more.
You clearly get so wrapped up in lashing out at people that you forget your own premise.
From the article:
Observers had speculated that there are enough voters who are complete morons and believe in "guilt by meeting" that the footage could have derailed Obamas hopes for a second term.
Conveniently for the Republicans, those same morons seem to overlook the myriad meetings between neocons and Saddam, neocons and Bin Laden, neocons and Enron, Halliburton, Diebold, Rush Limbaugh (if anyone knows about prostitutes and porn it's bound to be him).
Clearly what you are doing is calling anyone who refuses to claim equivalency between decades a meeting or two with a few pics as morons.
No double standard, really. Honestly. Show me where I've shown to support the guilt by associaton fallacy. Hint in case you're too stupid to realize - I was being facetious about Saddam and Bin LAden in this thread.
I understand that. I was noting that the figures Obama will be shown with are not just one time associations or coincidental meetings. It isn't guilt by association when you are actively working with the party in the picture across years or even decades. Saying here's some donor I took a picture with or some person who asked me to sign my book and take a picture with them isn't the same as he's the guy who's church I attended for two decades and who even oversaw my wedding.
So when you teasingly declare that the morons won't see their hypocrisy when it is their own team, it is because you cannot see your own hypocrisy in noting the completely different criteria.
No, I don't. You're lying or projecting.. AGAIN.
It must suck to be such an angry person who resorts to such cheap measures to ignore their own problems.
So now it's a "relationship"? Define relationship. Even if it's a fucking gay sex affair, it still doesn't prove any wrongdoing on Obama's part.
No, the point is that you guys are wanking at the prospect of "damning" Obama for something that proves no wrongdoing whatsoever.
No one need define anything to you or even help you take off their blinders. Just understand that when you run around all bitter and angry, calling them liars, hypocrites and morons, that you are the person wearing the blinders and all the people you are calling names are snickering at your angry rants. You're a step or two below "end stage" BR who pissing and moans that no one addresses certain points while ignoring the very posts that do, and thus anyone who reads the thread will judge him an idiot, but know that throwing tantrums and calling names doesn't make an three year old right, nor does it work in your age bracket.
Let's see the videos in question first. My guess is that there's no "there" there.
Go do a google search and judge for yourself. It isn't hard. It is clear Ayers is addressing it in a passive-aggressive manner because he is so self-loathing. The books earned Obama quite a bit of money and of course he can't ask for it nor should he desire it under his own moral code so he admits it several times even without being questioned about it. He makes it a bit mocking, depending upon the video and offers to share the royalties if anyone will prove it for him thus impugning the motives (money) of anyone who would actually seek to verify his own claim.