<<WHAT FACTS?? That's the point. You have none. You have an OPIONION of how much smarter Oblather is supposed to be. You have an OPINION of how he would supposedly argue reason to McCain's emotion (when ironically it'd be pretty much the opposite. More of that leftist projection I suppose). You have an OPINION that the MSM is supposedly in cahoots with the Neo-cons and are pro-war, when reality dictates just the opposite. You have an OPINION that the audience would be chalk full of neo-cons and pro-war folks asking questions, without any shred of proof or history of such. >>
As I said, you're very confused. You're all over the map with a collection of issues but in this particular thread, I only gave an opinion on ONE issue, which I said was backed with fact, and when you challenged me to produce the facts, I did produce facts - - facts which related to the issue of whether or not Obama would do well in a "town-hall" debate with McSame.
Now you raise a whole bunch of other issues - - (1) who's smarter, Obama or McSame; (2) HOW Obama would argue against McSame if they DID enter a "town-hall" format; (3) whether the MSM is in cahoots with the neocons; and (4) whether the audience would be stacked. Of course I have an opinion on each of those subjects, but I was not asked to back up my opinions on any of those issues with facts - - however, I'll do it now.
1. That Obama's smarter than McCain - - well, the most obvious indicator is that McCain finished in the bottom five of his Annapolis class (not the bottom five per cent, the bottom FIVE!) whereas Obama, who graduated from both Columbia University and Harvard Law School, was a university professor and an author. Those are all FACTS and every one of them indicates that Obama is by far the smarter man.
2. How would Obama argue against McSame - - well in fact I did NOT express an opinion on that issue, in fact I stated there were two possibilities, both bad for Obama: one, he would backtrack or two, he would stand his ground, either one being to his potential disadvantage as I demonstrated. However, since I did NOT express an opinion on the subject and specifically stated that I did not know the answer, I think it's ludicrous to complain, as you did, that I had no facts in support of my non-opinion. That is just nuts.
3. Whether the MSM is in cahoots with "the neocons." I believe I said it was in cahoots with the Pentagon, and I did back that up with a reference to a recent scandal in which dozens of retired military analysts hired by the MSM as "independent" military "experts" in fact were briefed by the Pentagon and told what line to take in voicing their "independent" opinions. Again, that is not just my opinion, that is documented FACT.
4. Whether the audience would be "stacked." - - I don't of course have any "proof" of what would happen at a future debate that might or might not take place, I had an opinion as to what MIGHT happen and of course it is just a possibility. It's a possibility that Osama bin Laden might be captured tomorrow, but stating a mere possibility does not create any obligation to produce facts in support of it.
<<In summary, you have no FACTS to support any of your allegations . . . >>
Well, stop right there - - there are PLENTY of facts to indicate that Obama is by far the smarter man.
<< . . . and if Oblather were as smart and sharp as you think he is, he'd jump at the idea. >>
No he would not. He'd recognize it as a trap.
<<But you're right in 1 sense, such town hall meetings would be absolutely detrimental to Obama >>
Well, d'oh
<< . . . having to explain his voting record>>
looks OK to me; most liberal Senator; I've got a feeling he could explain his voting record a hell of a lot better than McSame could explain away his crooked monkey business as a member of the Keating Five,
<< . . . having to xplain his siding with Democrats on 99.9% of evey piece of legislation>>
Geeze, that's gonna be tough. Lemme see, "I sided with the Democrats 99.9% because . . . because I'm a Democrat?" Nah, doesn't sound right. Because they were going to expose me as a Negro? Nah, you're right - - he'll NEVER be able to explain that one.
<< and not once working on compromises or bukcing the part line like McCain. >>
Yeah that's what the people want who want change - - COMPROMISE, so we can keep HALF of the mistakes the Republicans made. CHANGE means something different. The War on Iraq was compromise. Democrats and REpublicans together voted for it. THAT is the problem. CHANGE means Democrats who act like Democrats, not Democrats who act like Republicans. That's what got the country into the mess that it's in, Democrats who did not have the balls to stand up to Republican fascism, racism and militarism.
<< He might even have to address the issues of his piss-poor judgement as it relates who he currently associates with. >>
Oh, I certainly hope THAT issue comes up. That will be hilarious. What's McSame gonna ask him, "Why don't you associate with fine upstanding citizens, men like Charles Keating?" OH PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Sen. McSame, PLEASE raise the issue of keeping bad company with Barak Obama. PLEEEEEZE.
