• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bill Ayers admits he wrote "Dreams From My Father"

Upchurch said:
Cashill's argument (and thus your own) has been shredded to pieces. Do you have anything to say about that BAC?
Click to expand...

What?! You think that randomly spitting on the President of the USA is not a wonderful counterargument?
 
BeAChooser said:
And you can pretend that Obama isn't a complete sham, ANTPogo. :D
Click to expand...

Come on, BAC. Stop avoiding the question.

What do you think of Cashill's near-moronic levels of gullibility (or his grotesquely blatant dishonesty, take your pick) which resulted in him promoting the "photoshopped" images talked about upthread?

Why do you apparently think he's totally trustworthy when it comes to analyses of Obama's books, when it's patently obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about regarding (and yet is completely comfortable with) discussing utterly non-existent "flaws" in pictures of Obama?

Why is his analysis of Obama's books to be trusted in your mind, when his analysis of Obama's personal pictures is so gruesomely and blatantly wrong?
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
And you can pretend that Obama isn't a complete sham, ANTPogo. :D
Click to expand...


Psh. Cashill, on more than one occasion apparently, has been proven to be a complete sham. It's still merely your unfounded belief that Obama is a complete sham. At this point, the weight of reality still rests firmly on the side of the non-birthers.
 
ANTPogo said:
What do you think of Cashill's near-moronic levels of gullibility (or his grotesquely blatant dishonesty, take your pick) which resulted in him promoting the "photoshopped" images talked about upthread?
Click to expand...

What do you think of the near-moronic level of gullibility (or grotesquely blatant dishonesty, take your pick) needed to still be promoting Obama's version of hope and change after the trail of lies, failures, flip-flops and stupidity we've seen from him and his administration the last two plus years?

Why would anyone think Obama trustworthy when it comes to ... well, name a subject, when it's patently obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about regarding ... well, name a subject?
 
BeAChooser said:
What do you think of the near-moronic level of gullibility (or grotesquely blatant dishonesty, take your pick) needed to still be promoting Obama's version of hope and change after the trail of lies, failures, flip-flops and stupidity we've seen from him and his administration the last two plus years?

Why would anyone think Obama trustworthy when it comes to ... well, name a subject, when it's patently obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about regarding ... well, name a subject?
Click to expand...

Failed attempt to change the subject. This thread isn't for discussing Obama's performance in office. It's for mocking the certifiable idiocy of your claim that Ayers admitted writing Obama's book.
 
BeAChooser said:
But he did. It's right there on videotape. :D
Click to expand...

After all this, do you still believe he was being sincere and not joking? Do you still believe it is likely that Ayers wrote the book despite all the evidence that "led you to that conclusion" has now been debunked?
 
i think whenever BaC posts the :D he knows he is posting lies.
 
Upchurch said:
After all this, do you still believe he was being sincere and not joking? Do you still believe it is likely that Ayers wrote the book despite all the evidence that "led you to that conclusion" has now been debunked?
Click to expand...

He seems to think that claims of a writing style analysis algorithm reaching near 100% to 50 sf certainty isn't ridiculous: I doubt BAC will ever produce a sensible answer.
 
12 pages, and BAC has still refused to provide one iota of evidence for his claim. Again, evidence related to Ayers having written the book is NOT evidence for his initial claim.

He needs to provide a historical analysis of Ayers' humor to show that this instance we're discussing does not correlate with his normal joking behavior.

Then, and only then, will he have any sort of backing for his claim. This Cashill stuff is completely unrelated.
 
BeAChooser said:
What do you think of the near-moronic level of gullibility (or grotesquely blatant dishonesty, take your pick) needed to still be promoting Obama's version of hope and change after the trail of lies, failures, flip-flops and stupidity we've seen from him and his administration the last two plus years?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me? I'm not an Obama supporter, and haven't exactly been pleased with him or his policies since his election. I also didn't vote for him. I'm not even a registered Democrat.

Why would anyone think Obama trustworthy when it comes to ... well, name a subject, when it's patently obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about regarding ... well, name a subject?
Click to expand...

And this has what, exactly, to do with your uncritical repeating of Cashill's idiocy in this and other threads? Why can't you answer the direct, on-topic question? Or are you really trying to make the "argument" that gnome is mocking you for, that Obama is a Bad President and therefore Cashill isn't actually either a blatant liar or the epitome of epic fail when it comes to research and analysis?

So, I'll ask you again: why do you apparently think Cashill is totally trustworthy when it comes to analyses of Obama's books, when it's patently obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about regarding the utterly non-existent "flaws" in pictures of Obama, giving such a wrongheaded interpretation that even Helen Keller is facepalming at Cashill's idiocy?

Why is his analysis of Obama's books to be trusted in your mind, when his analysis of Obama's personal pictures is so gruesomely and blatantly wrong? Is he a liar, do you think, or just a horrifically poor researcher?
 
I am starting to think that BeAChooser's nickname of BAC should be for "Birther and Creationist".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom