The Hypocrisy In "Guilty By Association"

Finally someone with a real post.

You really have to look at that 90% statement a little deeper. Not all of Bush's policies are bad ideas. Even then the other 10% of stuff McCain opposed has been pretty big. I must also add that the 90% figure is for one year of voting and not an entire voting history. It just so happens it was also a year where McCain did not vote a lot as he was business gearing up for a presidential/primary run. McCain's voting history shows he's been as low as 67% in line with his party. PRETTY DANG LOW in terms of party loyalty.

Don't start bringing up voting records because if people only knew the truth behind records of these two candidates it wouldn't even be a competition for McCain, this is with the exclusion of his bi-partisan supporter.

You can call it apples and oranges, but either way the cookie crumbles it has its merit.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by AndrewTB]

reply to post by davion

---

Maybe he never tried to actively hide it, but he sure didn't actively disclose it, either.

That is what the majority of people are concerned with. It's like the more he is looked at, the more things and people, questionable people, pop out of the woodwork.

Why not just disclose the information and protect himself from the negative spins on it?

reply to post by AndrewTB

---

I wasn't trying to comment on the good or bad of the bills in question, just the 'association' of it. If McCain had a 50/50 voting record with Bush, then the Obama camp would be out of ammo. It's just good politics to try to link your opponent with an unpopular incumbent. I just wish that both candidates would concentrate on the issues and leave to poo flinging to the monkeys at the zoo!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

---

We live in a society where the majority want to be entertained, not informed. Issues aren't that entertaining.

But, dirt and gossip are. And, both campaigns know that the "poo flinging" attracts some people and so they play to the lowest common denominator.

I think hypocrisy is the wrong word. I think what we are talking about is "fallacy".

Wikipedia explains it as follows: Guilt by association is a formal fallacy, that is, it follows a pattern of reasoning which is always wrong, rendering the argument invalid.

en.wikipedia.org...

The guilt by association fallacy is formally defined in first order logic as follows: If there exists any X in the set S so that the property Y is true for X, then for all X in S, the property Y must be true. This line of logic is provably false. (Pretty cool!)

In other words, A is B, A is also C. Therefore B is C. That is a false and useless statement.

Bill Ayers is Obama's friend. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Therefore, Obama must be a terrorist. The argument is invalid.

Also: Bush is incompetent. Bush respects McCain. Anyone who respects McCain is incompetent. That pattern of reasoning is wrong, and the argument proves nothing.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by skeptic1

---

But it's not working! It is only energizing the base, which they already have. It's doing nothing to swing the undecides in their favor, and in the end, it will cost them the election. In a normal election it might work, but these are not normal times, and people want answers to issues, not another episode of some sick soap opera!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

---

WE want those things. But, WE are in the minority. Do you think that the majority of the voting public thinks like WE do? Do you think they take the time to research the issues, voting records, character, judgement, etc.? Or, do they just take the word of the MSM and vote on what they think they know?

reply to post by davion

---

This statement alone shows that he does exchange ideas with ayers. The thing is what is Obama's definition of regular basis.

And what entails exchanging ideas which neither you nor I know, so lets not start crying about the sky falling.

Regardless, the documents have been released on the CAC and everyone that has looked at them except Kurtz has said there's pretty much nothing there that links Obama and Ayers to anything other than the business at hand, and as I said the documents only mention Obama and Ayers being in the same room together 6 or 7 times in several years. So I don't see how it's an issue.

Why mention that he worked with Ayers when he has already stated that he knows him and according to the documents and minutes nothing was amiss. Ultimately CAC was a failure at what it set out to do in the end, so you're lambasting Obama for not mentioning that he worked with someone on a public project that failed?

[edit on 10-10-2008 by davion]

HAVING THE SAME VOTING RECORD VS. THIN CONNECTION.

What was the percentage of times that Obama agreed with Ayres?

Edit to add...
This is a continuation of 7 degrees of desperation.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Grafilthy]

Well, don't forget how quickly Obama dropped his church of 20+ years when too much _truth_ was discovered by Americans of what a racist, tax-exempt, hatemongering group of "mentors" they are.

Desperation? Absolutely not, but knowing what I know about real voting records, i find the argument very legit. Voting with someone 90% of time in one year doesn't mean you're that person. If you break it down into a formula its quite pathetic its used as a means of defense in arguement.

Bush has been around 8 years, McCain has been around those same 8 years and the 90% number only accounts for 1 year of limited voting.

Its all about tying people to other people, you really seem to miss the main point.

[edit on 10/11/2008 by AndrewTB]

reply to post by AndrewTB

---

IT is an easily accessible way for OBAMA to relate the fact that JOHN MCCAIN
is a

trickle down
pro war
pro big business
pro deregulation
Rich first, candidate.

And I think it is rather straight forward.

AYER'S is an easily accessible way to point out the fact that OBAMA

is foreign looking
black
has a funny name

"AND IS NOT ONE OF US" as PATRICK BUCANAN so honestly stated today.

It is the underlying implications that are disagreeable for me.

IT implies that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer

A terrorists by proxy?

IT has a direct link to ROVIEN tactics shamelessly milking the 9/11 tragedy and the lingering fears and doubts.

Most of all this panders to the silent racism and bigotry that still exists.

So please lets not pretend that this last aspect is not the main factor.

just as Mccain fathered a black baby-

In this case OBAMA is the black baby.

PS - Pat Bucanan!

So doesnt McCain/Palin want it both ways. McCain wanted the endorsement of Rev. Hagee until it was too late. DOH! And we have this and we are not supposed to consider or even know about it but all we hear about is who Obama is associated with. There is no way in hell anyone can justify lambasting one campaign for this over the other. They are equally guilty.

reply to post by MorningStar8741

---

yes they are both guilty except Obama was and is the one decrying the politics of old. Yet everything he does is from the old school of politics. He answers controversy with limited words and then walks around like he was ignorant that the people he mingled with had shady past. Once he gets grilled on it he distances himself from it. We are talking about a highly educated person here. Is he really that naive that he doesn't realize the characters he hangs around with? If he is naive, do you want somebody like that as President?

Funny how we label the people who hang around shady people in real life but want to give Obama a pass for doing likewise. If we saw a person hanging around drug users over a period of time then do we not assume he is a drug user also? How many people do you think are in jail for hanging around shady characters?

Did Obama not try to relate Keating and McCain? If Obama feels Mac hangs around bad characters let the world know and Mac will have to answer for it too. As far as keating Mac already answered for that. With ayers the story seems to come out a little at a time.

reply to post by jam321

---

See and I did not even mention Keating because that just seems so irrelevant. I think if you want to worry about what one rev. says then you should worry even more about the one being called "a spiritual leader." But is Obama pushing that story? No. Palin has friends that proudly claim to "hate America" and even wants to get them into political positions in the country they hate...is Obama running with that story? No. I guess he is more worried about issues and moving on then who people are friends with. Thanks for pointing that out. Obama is better than McCain. Thank you!

reply to post by MorningStar8741

---

Issues is one thing but judgment weighs more than issues. If Obama feels that he has issues that could bear on Palin or McCain judgment then he should air them. Oh wait, I forgot. He has most of the media and his surrogates doing that dirty job for him. That way it looks like he is staying above the fray. Obama isn't any different from any other politician. But seen that many of you view him as the chosen one I can see why you would want to overlook his ill advised friends.

But I will say this, if he wins, I am going to enjoy watching Pelosi wipe her ass with him.

Obama cant push the story because McCain has admitted to it in the past. Hes also been quoted as saying it was an embarrassment to his career.

Obama took a very different route, a route of deceit and lack of communication.

reply to post by AndrewTB

---

OK, don't get all hostile on me, but I have a question, and I don't know the answer so I'm asking. Is it possible, due to the Weatherman being so long ago, that Obama didn't know about Ayers past until the story broke? Is it possible that he got blindsided by this and didn't know how to respond? Is there any proof that they worked closely together? Hell, I forgot all about him, and I remember the Weatherman and the flap around them back in the 70's. I also missed the story that was released about him on 9/11, but then again, the attack was the only story for weeks after the attack, so it got buried by the events later that day.

ANTI OBAMA folks are the ones that view him as the "chosen one."

ITS brilliant!

I have never used that term nor do I think it is accurate.

Its a construct of the right and it is a brilliant ploy, the more it is said the more repulsive it sounds.

Unfortunately it does not make me think of OBAMA or lefties...

ITs kinda of old and counter productive at this point because it is used like a code word for the "n" word. Well it is used as a replacement in WV these days.


In fact I think the term is a motivator more than anything for the OBAMA peoples.





[edit on 11-10-2008 by Aramdy Alhamdy]