Nope. It's a fallacy. And your "pattern" is simply fiding patterns in the noise, connect the dots, six degrees of separation conspiracy theory.
My hunch all along has been thus: Rev. Wright can be, thanks to the content of some of his sermons, characterized as an "angry black man," a type many might consider radical and scary. So one way to inflict damage on Mr. Obama would be to relentlessly pair the two men with the goal of guilt-by-association.
Does it make him a socialist? No. Are they attracted to his politics and he to theirs? Evidently, and when his politics have been judged outside of the associations as I mentioned as being the most liberal in 2007, the mutual attraction is explained.
I guess the socialist endorsements are all just random, no connection to his politics. Hell, they could have endorsed Palin just as easily, huh?
Wow, so now the term "liberal" as I used it in reference to a ranking of the most conservative and liberal senators is an ad hominem? Guess you'd better tell the guys over at the National Journal to cease with that ad hominum terminology when they do those rankings.
Your metrics can be found here: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm
Politicfact looked at the claim, "Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate." They found it to be mostly false. I said he was found to be the most liberal in 2007. That is true. He wasn't the top liberal in his two other years in the U.S. Senate according to National Journal . He was 10th-most liberal in 2006 and 16th in 2005. Also as noted in the link, the 2006 rating by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action that gave Obama 95 percent, although there were a few others with as high or higher score, the picture is pretty clear that that he has a far left leaning record.Tsukasa Buddha said:
Your attack on socialism is A.) Moving the goal posts and B.) Ad hominem. I reject that socialism is evil or bad. C.) You are equivocating the word socialism. Define your terms. BTW: where is Wildcat, Mhaze and all of the other strict usage of the word "socialism" proponents when someone from the right uses it outside of the classical definition?
Which ones have anything to do with Wright, radicalism or racism? You are moving he goal posts and engaging in ad hominem.
No, I'm criticizing your usage of the label. I don't accept that "liberal" is a pejorative and your using it as a pejorative is simple ad hominem. Why use the modifier "most" when referring to Obama as "the most liberal"? If liberal isn't a pejorative then it makes no sense.
I said A man is known by the company he keeps. BO was a member of Wright's church for 20+ years before the political controversy. You tell me, did Wright suddenly take a radical bent which drove BO out, or did BO have no problem with Wright's radical rantings but only left when political expediency demanded it?
Er, no.
Perhaps. Perhaps, but not exclusively known that way.
According to this, she wasn't comfortable with Wright's more incendiary sermons but she also knew that her connection with him could damage her public image.
Did you continue your involvement with the church knowing what was going on?
Well then, do show how Americans for Democratic Action and the National Journal where wrong in their assessments of his voting records.
True, which I alluded to earlier.
I don't Know it doesn't matter. Obama could have respected Wright for many things but rejected the radical things and/or excused them out of bias. That's what I did when I was Mormon. I rejected many doctrines including blacks not being able to hold the priesthood, patriarchy and other tenants of the Mormon Church. I used the standard cognitive tricks to smooth over the dissonance because there was so much I loved about Mormonism and I believed that it was true. That's precisely why your guilt by association argument is a fallacy. Being a Mormon didn't tell anyone what was in fact in my mind.
