I'm not sure the McCain campaign is quite slimy enough

[Upchurch]

Um... you didn't use a metaphor. That was an analogy. No wonder you couldn't figure out its logic.

What is it with you and the "Gotcha!" games? Seriously.

A metaphor is a type of analogy.

Analogies (not metaphors) don't work merely because they're similar in some respect. They need to be similar in the important and relevant respect. And the analogy you made is not, because Christians do not view atheism the way most of us view terrorism.

Actually, the analogous part is my tenuous relationship with Mayor Slay. I could have accused him of associations with an Eagle Scout and the metaphor (or analogy, if it loosens the stick up your butt) would still stand.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Wow...just wow.

Granpy has no clue, "HUH"....."HUH"..."HUH"....

How can you argue the point of McSame? That dude has NO FREAKIN' CLUE about anything except his hottie wife, and that Barbie Doll running mate Sarah.

He's a Moran!

 

[Ziggurat]

A metaphor is a type of analogy.

Yes, it is. But it's a subset of analogy, and there are analogies which are not metaphors. Your argument was one of them.

Actually, the analogous part is my tenuous relationship with Mayor Slay. I could have accused him of associations with an Eagle Scout and the metaphor (or analogy, if it loosens the stick up your butt) would still stand.

You still haven't addressed why you think Christians would view associating with atheists as being equivalent to associating with terrorists. The substitution you suggest doesn't fix the problem that the associations are simply not equivalent.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Did they advocate doing so via the ballot box, or via armed insurrection? I believe it was the former, which does indeed make it an apples and oragutans comparison. Having stupid beliefs is not equivalent to having evil beliefs.

Who is the evil belief holder you are referring to?

 

[joobz]

Analogies (not metaphors) don't work merely because they're similar in some respect. They need to be similar in the important and relevant respect. And the analogy you made is not, because Christians do not view atheism the way most of us view terrorism.

Actually His analogy was quite accurate and showed quite clearly why circumstantial associations are not enough to incriminate a person on anything.

if Upchurch had said

The mayor of St. Louis, Francis Slay, was at the rehearsal dinner for my wedding*. His wife wished us good luck. Since then, I've actually bumped into him several places, mostly fundraisers for various organizations or building openings.

Did you know that Francis Slay is associated with a known Astros Fan? Isn't Slay's association with the Astro's Fan, Upchurch, a valid question to be raised in the mostly cardinals fan city of St. Louis?

The important analogy wasn't the comparison of religion to terrorism, but the use of weak associations as a means of discrediting a person.

This is a form of poisoning the well and is a rather dumb smear tactic.

 

[Tricky]

Did they advocate doing so via the ballot box, or via armed insurrection? I believe it was the former, which does indeed make it an apples and oragutans comparison. Having stupid beliefs is not equivalent to having evil beliefs.

You think? Tell me, Ziggy. Is it legal for a state to secede, even if they vote for it? And if they did declare seccession, what do you think the US would do? It really isn't as simple as "holding a stupid belief". It is advocating breaking the laws of the United States. Maybe you think that is not important so long as they vote on it, or maybe you think their meetings are just testosterone parties. (And you might be right about the latter.) Some Texans talk about seceding too, though not many of them are serious.

But if you want to blow something out of proportion, being married to a person who, two years ago, was a of a group that advocates breaking US laws is at least as much fodder for overacted outrage as being an acquaintence of a member of a group that broke US laws fourty years ago. Whatever you think of Ayers, and however staunchly you resist believing that he has changed, there is simply no significant connection between him and Obama. All the fact-checkers bear this out.

Now I think the earlier claim was that Ayers had never apologized. It was shown that he had. But instead of a "my mistake", we get a new position that he didn't apologize enough, and that you don't belive his sincerity. I think I can feel the draft from the goal posts as they whiz by.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it is. But it's a subset of analogy, and there are analogies which are not metaphors. Your argument was one of them.

You still haven't addressed why you think Christians would view associating with atheists as being equivalent to associating with terrorists. The substitution you suggest doesn't fix the problem that the associations are simply not equivalent.

Well....

The important analogy wasn't the comparison of religion to terrorism, but the use of weak associations as a means of discrediting a person.

This is a form of poisoning the well and is a rather dumb smear tactic.

joobz managed to tease my meaning from my post quite accurately. If you can't concede that my argument is what I (and joobz) say it is, then let's just use joobz's post as my argument.

 

[Upchurch]

All the fact-checkers bear this out.

The New York Times agrees. But how can you trust them? They're the ones who said Ayers doesn't regret setting bombs.

 

[Augustine]

Now I think the earlier claim was that Ayers had never apologized. It was shown that he had. But instead of a "my mistake", we get a new position that he didn't apologize enough, and that you don't belive his sincerity. I think I can feel the draft from the goal posts as they whiz by.

Since you have chosen to repeat your assertion that "goalposts have moved", I will repeat my previous response:

Goalposts haven't moved. Demonstrate to me where William Ayers has acknowledged that his past activities as a Weatherman were in fact terrorist actions, and that he regrets them. He has not, and selective quotations in a wikipedia article misrepresent the truth. If you would care to challenge anything else from my post, feel free.

You have failed to show this, protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Upchurch]

Say, what about Ms. Palin traipsing, cavorting, and (gosh darn it) sleeping with a person who associated with a group which advocated seceding from the Union? Or is that apples and orangutans?

Hey, Todd Palin isn't the one running for President or even Vice President. Bill Ayers is.... not either.

Well, Barack Obama and Bill Ayres were on the board of a charitable foundation together and attended a handful of the same meetings for another group. You can't be much more in bed together than that..... unless they were literally in bed together, like the Palins.


Ya got me, man.

 

[Tricky]

Since you have chosen to repeat your assertion that "goalposts have moved", I will repeat my previous response:

Goalposts haven't moved. Demonstrate to me where William Ayers has acknowledged that his past activities as a Weatherman were in fact terrorist actions, and that he regrets them. He has not, and selective quotations in a wikipedia article misrepresent the truth. If you would care to challenge anything else from my post, feel free.

What difference would it make? I show you posts where he says he expresses regrets and you decide that he didn't really mean it. I show you where fact checkers agree with near unanimity that he has had no close association with Ayers and you claim that because Ayers hosted a tea for a preferred candidate that they are somehow in collusion.

What is the point of challenging you if you ignore everything that has been demonstrated? So no, I think I'll pass on your kind invitation. I have to go burp my Tupperware.

 

[Augustine]

What difference would it make? I show you posts where he says he expresses regrets and you decide that he didn't really mean it. I show you where fact checkers agree with near unanimity that he has had no close association with Ayers and you claim that because Ayers hosted a tea for a preferred candidate that they are somehow in collusion.

What is the point of challenging you if you ignore everything that has been demonstrated? So no, I think I'll pass on your kind invitation. I have to go burp my Tupperware.

Wow, don't get touchy. Take your rhetorical ball and go home if you want. You did not like the fact that I pointed out that your claim of "regrets" really amounted to regrets that "things turned out the way they did" for Richard Elrod, not "regrets" for his Weatherman activities or even for the actions of Brian Flanagan (pointedly making it clear to Elrod that they didn't believe Flanagan to be responsible for his injuries, despite Elrod's testimony to that effect).
Please cite to me where I "claim that because Ayers hosted a tea for a preferred candidate that they are somehow in collusion". I have never said such a thing. I suppose I may expect a "my mistake" from you for that remark?

I have not ignored everything that has been demonstrated. The same conversation I have been having with you I have been having with Upchurch. I repeat the same assertions (with documentation for sources). If you can respond, do so; if you have evidence, give it. However, by the same token, be willing to examine your own sources for their completeness.

Again, my original point: Demonstrate to me where William Ayers has acknowledged that his past activities as a Weatherman were in fact terrorist actions, and that he regrets them. I have provided evidence that he has done neither.

 

[I Am He]

This might be a little off topic but I sent this, it's a YouTube Video from Macsmind Blog. I was wondering if this is true, or was it someone splicing some clips together to make it seem like one Obama speech. The reason I ask is because I have never seen it used before in any of McCain's Ads: http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america/


I Am He

 

[MattusMaximus]

Here's a great way to dress-down these morons pushing the "Obama pals around with terrorists" garbage. (It starts getting really good at 1:15)

Robert Gibbs Schools Hannity on Ayers

 

[Cain]

Blah blah blah Bill Ayers blah blah blah. The people who drone on about Ayers tend to be fanatical apologists for state violence. Well, U.S. violence. Incinerating Vietnamese children is OK -- we're fightin' communism, bringin' democracy, and if that means burnin' villages to save'em, so be it. This guy helps blow up empty federal buildings and you'd think he detonated a precious red state. Just totally ****ed up values.

I think McCain has a higher percentage of deranged supporters than Obama. And talk about slimy! Not sure if this has been posted yet, but it's a YouTube video of old, cranky white people ambling into a McCain rally calling Obama a terrorist, a Muslim, saying he hangs out with terrorists, telling Obama supporters to die (and get jobs), stop killing babies, and blaming Obama for the economic collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbpZXivv-M

There was also this totally crazy guy in the audience with the mic at a McCain rally. He started ranting about socialism, talking over McCain. It was in Wisconsin, but the video was pulled off the BoobTube.

 

[Richard Masters]

When calling someone slimy, I would avoid the use of the term "milf" in describing the other side. But that's just me.

Isn't MILF a compliment?

 

[Whiplash]

Here's a great way to dress-down these morons pushing the "Obama pals around with terrorists" garbage. (It starts getting really good at 1:15)

Robert Gibbs Schools Hannity on Ayers

You and reality only have a rough familiarity with each other, correct?

 

[fishbob]

Your comparison requires that Christians view atheism the same way that most of us regard terrorism . . . . . . .

Many do, and your argument falls down - flatter than a portfolio full of derivatives.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . I used a metaphor that was similar in some respect to illustrate the point I was making. That's what metaphors are, after all. Since you understand the logic of my argument, perhaps you can tell me what the point I was trying to illustrate with that particular metaphor?

Waste of a perfectly good metaphor.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I must extend my law of analogies to cover jerks other than creationists.