It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woops: McCain Funded Rashid Khalidi

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Maybe you should ask your kids if they can explain the difference between a tax break and a tax hike. Then, just maybe, you'll understand Obama's tax policy and then we can actually have an intelligent discussion on it.




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Maybe you should ask your kids if they can explain the difference between a tax break and a tax hike. Then, just maybe, you'll understand Obama's tax policy and then we can actually have an intelligent discussion on it.


Maybe YOU can quit talking as if I had said anything about either of them sublime. Then you could quit appearing you are having conversations with yourself



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Give it up. People think you're Rush Limbaugh you're so partisan. You still think I'm supporting Obama because you just fly off the handle when any one gets mud on McCain. But the point is that if you want to claim Obama is palling around with terrorists then you need to admit that McCain is funding terrorism and has funded a known terrorist. OR you need to admit that while this guy may hate Israel a bit more than normal but he's not a terrorist, McCain did not fund a terrorist, and Obama is not palling around with terrorists. The only way this is mud on McCain is if you hate Obama so much as to make Rashid a terrorist to try and smear Obama. While ignoring Gordon Liddy and Pinochet connections to McCain...



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal


Give it up. People think you're Rush Limbaugh you're so partisan. You still think I'm supporting Obama because you just fly off the handle when any one gets mud on McCain. But the point is that if you want to claim Obama is palling around with terrorists then you need to admit that McCain is funding terrorism and has funded a known terrorist. OR you need to admit that while this guy may hate Israel a bit more than normal but he's not a terrorist, McCain did not fund a terrorist, and Obama is not palling around with terrorists. The only way this is mud on McCain is if you hate Obama so much as to make Rashid a terrorist to try and smear Obama. While ignoring Gordon Liddy and Pinochet connections to McCain...


Ill give up if i am fighting a losing battle but so far you haven't even shown me a cogent argument .

You can come off like you are not supporting obama behind the guise of some independent thinker but you're an Obamanoid and that is as transparent as your little game you are playing is obvious.

You have done nothing but use baseless accusations predicated on the logical fallacy for guilt by association and assuming the conesquent.

fly off the handle??

ha ha ha I would first have to believe you have something credible enough to worry my that what you are saying may be believed by anyone with any real relative importance and I think I speak for Rush when I say "You ain't it"


You may THINK you are but I realize most people that have read your posts are aware of your presumptuous meanderings from thinking McCain funded a terrorist to flattering yourself thinking you have the capacity to make me "fly off the handle". You have not substantiated any of your claims with an IOTA of proof and that speaks for itself. My correcting your errors would only seem as if I was picking on you from here on out.

I don't smear Obama, I only exploit his dirty Voter Fraud tactics, his ruination of Illinois economy, his registration fraud complicity, his curiosity with KNOWN terrorists, and his plethora of lies and deceptions. As for ignoring G. Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt to society and McCain's so called ties to pinochet?

What ties? You havn't said anything to deny, you simply failed to even make that an issue. There is nothing there. If you would care to debate me in a formal debate I would welcome the chance to take an extra five minutes it would take to have the Mods judging it, tell you what I have already expressed but you seem to have your mind made up and the last thing you are going to have anyone do is confuse you with the facts



[edit on 2-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


You haven't even read the whole thread have you? The ONLY way this is Mud on McCain is if you hate Obama so much to claim this guy is a terrorist. If you claim he is then McCain funded terrorism.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


You haven't even read the whole thread have you? The ONLY way this is Mud on McCain is if you hate Obama so much to claim this guy is a terrorist. If you claim he is then McCain funded terrorism.


In YOUR OPINION it does gamergirl but as you have successfully established, YOUR opinion is not one many familiar with inductive reasoning in arguments using the protocols of critical thinking and logical fallacy, would consider anything more than an example of someone who has no grasp of logic but uses a dreadful tactic of terminal self righteousness that would make one wince.

Just thinking about how oblivious to that fact you are, invokes a knee jerk reaction to be embarrassed for you.

In fact I should probably stop here as I know without you having the aid of a dictionary in addition to a remedial course in conflict resolution, I would find myself having to dumb myself down to a 7th grade reading level just to explain all that to you.

Frankly GG, with all due respect, you're just not worth the exercise.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


My opinion? TAX RETURNS prove McCain funded Rashid. Or are you calling the IRS Liberal and Anti McCain? So again, McCain funded Rashid. But did he fund a terrorist? Only if you claim Rashid is to smear Obama. So again make sure to wash the mud off your hands before slinging it at Obama.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


. So again, McCain funded Rashid. But did he fund a terrorist? Only if you claim Rashid is to smear Obama. So again make sure to wash the mud off your hands before slinging it at Obama.


Ok I see I am going to have to explain this to you as if you were a 6 year old.



My opinion? TAX RETURNS prove McCain funded Rashid Or are you calling the IRS Liberal and Anti McCain?


No they don't prove he funded Rashid, that is a lie or you don't understand the fiduciary obligations for an entity with members of a board of directors has. If you can show me any documents where Rashid embezzled from the think tank showing proof McCain was complicit in that effort, to launder money so Rashid would end up with it for his own personal use, then you may have an angle but all you got now is the idea you are not making a complete fool of yourself having no clue how pathetic your argument is.

Oh and by the way, I am not calling the IRS anything but I am calling you a liar.

Now since you have not proven the IRS says McCain gave money to rashid, the rest of your argument is moot.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Maybe the point here is that nobody wants to pal around with McCain - They're affraid they too will eventually be labled a Radical, Socialist, extremist, Nazi... Quit with the Bush fear tactics already and start thinking logically instead of drinking whatever Kool-aid the McCain spin contras are brewing up and forcing down your soul. This is the exact irresponsible behavior you get from a desperate party trying to lie into office while causing division throughout the Country. I hope there are some literates out ther that will see right through this "smeared glass window of deception and vote on Tuesday to stop this nonsense and make us a great respected Country once again.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Tax returns show McCain's group, the group he is the Decider of, giving money to Rashid's group, the group he is the Decider of. But all you have to do is say Rashid isn't a terrorist and this is a non issue. The only reason this is an issue, McCain funding Rashid, is that you claim Rashid is a terrorist.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Tax returns show McCain's group, the group he is the Decider of, giving money to Rashid's group, the group he is the Decider of. But all you have to do is say Rashid isn't a terrorist and this is a non issue. The only reason this is an issue, McCain funding Rashid, is that you claim Rashid is a terrorist.


So then these groups McCain Representing the United States where if I keep using YOUR logic I can say WE funded a terrorist. I have seen others like it too. For instance everytime we buy a gallon of gas, we send money to terrorists or help fund Al-Qaida. Has McCain given them any money since he found out about one of them being a known terrorist or is he like Obama who hangs out with Mobsters and Terrorists like ayers and gives a silly excuse about his being eight years old when all that was going on. Ill tell ya what, if my eight year old grew up to find some kind of friendship with Osama Bin Laden knowing what he did in the past,,??

Same stupid rationale Obama used see? At least his was better than Sublimes who said, "Ayers WAS a terrorist" but he isn't anymore LMAO As if that makes it ok to cavort with Osama Bin Laden when he "isn't anymore" haha ha.

Then we have the rationale that says: I just MAKE the Bomb,

I don't drop it.

Bottom line: I don't need Rashid to know Obama is a scumbag, I got plenty of other reasons for that. For one, I don't like anyone that can argue against a bill that would render basic human rights to a baby who against all odds, escaped death by a womans right to choose infanticide. That was ALL I needed to find Obama is one brick shy of a full load.

Then their is the lies and the many times he said McCain was lying about him when I look into it I find, McCain wasn't lying! .

So if you don't think I can say one is in cahoots while the other is not Grant or no Grant, you would be wrong. I am not encumbred with that useless emotion for having guilt about the plight of Blacks either so calling me a racist will only serve to prove my point about why this guy got treated with kid gloves about things that would have killed anyone else's chances at being President.

I've already seen a very powerful grass roots movement going on under the radar to Impeach Obama as soon as he takes the oath of office they are going to start hammering away at the represenatives to begin impeachment hearings. From what I hear, the clintons are behind it but don't quote me because it originated from the L.A. Times and we already know they are Obama's Bitch when it comes to the difference between slinging Mud and Exposing a Political Parasite like Obama



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Star to you for your valiant effort.
Unfortunately, I have succumbed to the kryptonite of dead end debates with a brick wall.

Khalidi is definitely a scumbag therefore Obama is friends with a scumbag. Scumbag + Scumbag=Scumbag



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Uh, McCain gave Rashid money AFTER his affilation with the PLO. So he was a known terrorist when McCain supported him.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Uh, McCain gave Rashid money AFTER his affilation with the PLO. So he was a known terrorist when McCain supported him.


The fact is he never gave Rashid the money at all and we have already established that fact. These are the "deciders" all that and several examples of logical fallacy so you could see the obvious reasons your argument doesn't work, isn't logical, wasn't well thought out and totally fails to make anyother point but that I could have got a box of rocks to see the futility in your premise before I will get someone who is willfully ignorant and Gamer Girl,, YOU are that person.


Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).


A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
www.nizkor.org...





Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.

Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":


Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:


Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:


Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma

Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."


GOT IT???


Description of Guilt By Association
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.




Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.




Now the rest of this fallacy has to do with MOTIVE and Cognition. As I said before, unless you can show the grant was in some way used by rashid and only rashid by an act of self determined collusion with McCain being knowingly complicit in the end, THEN you would have me raise an eyebrow and I'd be arguing WITH you instead of against you.

This think tank had a board of directors a treasure, etc,. If McCain wanted to give Rashid money, he would have wrote out the check to Rashid himself. This think tank had in its members people who knew the motives behind the fighting between the PLO and ISRAEL. It had members from both sides and its task was to arrive at workable solutions for peace in the region. Rashid being who he is could not garner any support from the US until he had some protocols in place where we weren't just buying him a new palace. So he set up an organization run similar to any corporate entity to protect investors from liability and members from lawsuits of a personal nature. In other words you sue the corporation and the corporation is held accountable not a person.

It is an entity not a person so McCain did NOT send money to "fund" Rashid. Their were others involved benefitting from that grant and there to make sure OUR interests were being considered and not JUST rashids




[edit on 4-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Star to you for your valiant effort.
Unfortunately, I have succumbed to the kryptonite of dead end debates with a brick wall.

Khalidi is definitely a scumbag therefore Obama is friends with a scumbag. Scumbag + Scumbag=Scumbag


Ha ha yeah I keep telling myself what am I wasting my time like this when I know GG has no intention of capitulating, no matter how humiliating it gets for her.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
Ha ha yeah I keep telling myself what am I wasting my time like this when I know GG has no intention of capitulating, no matter how humiliating it gets for her.


Don't feel too bad, she is just milking this topic for all the points she can. Anyone else happen to notice how many points she has gained since this "topic" started.

If only there was a mod who was doing their job and shutting this useless topic down. Man, I sure do miss the old days.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
First, my point remains a FACT. Rashid was a member of PLO from late 70s to early 80s. McCain gave him money in 1990s. Obama met him in the 2000's. Both men had contact with this guy. McCain funded him, Obama swapped wives or made out or did a circle jerk with the guy. It doesn't matter, they both knew Rashid. They both had contact with him. But you attack Obama for this connection and ignore McCain's. Why is that? And I'd love to point out that Ron Paul had no contact with him or Ayers. Second, I asked a Mod what points were for and you use them to buy stuff like fancy colors and stuff, whoop de do.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
First, my point remains a FACT. Rashid was a member of PLO from late 70s to early 80s. McCain gave him money in 1990s. Obama met him in the 2000's. Both men had contact with this guy. McCain funded him, Obama swapped wives or made out or did a circle jerk with the guy. It doesn't matter, they both knew Rashid. They both had contact with him. But you attack Obama for this connection and ignore McCain's. Why is that? And I'd love to point out that Ron Paul had no contact with him or Ayers. Second, I asked a Mod what points were for and you use them to buy stuff like fancy colors and stuff, whoop de do.



You HAVE no point GG! what does a damn house have to fall on your head! You can't corral someone into the situational politics of conflicting double standards when I have NO reason to think they are even closely the same much less have any motive for being that way!

This is the last time i will explain this to you, if you don't get it this time,, then the only thing I have to say I admit to is failing to drive home several of the most obvious and easily recognised logical fallacies in one of the most absurd ideas being put forth by the most willfully ignorant creator of the most tortuously construed false dilemma's I have ever seen here. BAR NONE!

1) For the fifth TIME McCain did NOT give money to a terrorist he gave a think tank a grant! GOT THAT? a THINK TANK, A THINK TANK,

Once more with feeling,, a THINK TANK!

Now your turn !

Motive? To get the PLO and the Jews to the table and explore solutions. Now how are we supposed to fund the necessary components to facilitate a meeting of the minds between these two factions WITHOUT HAVING AT LEAST ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THE PLO INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSIONS ????

2) Because McCain was in charge of that committee it is incumbent on him to deliver the grant awarded. This is MATTER of CIRCUMSTANCE! If it wasn't McCain it would have been someone else in the same capacity of that committee like Ron Paul if he was the one given that job.

3) That means this was NOT McCain doing this but The United States McCain being the Representative of same.

4) THAT MEANS THIS WAS NOT done out of a self serving agenda of personal interest but work related!

5) That Means! it was something he is paid to do and not something he necessarily WANTED TO DO!

Can you U N D E R S T A N D THAT!

6) Even IF John McCain funded this group and it had failed or the money was used to finance an act of terror, he still has protection under the Privileged Act Affirmative Defense

in other words,, GG,, Mitigating Circumstances!

What does that mean?

Glad you asked!

SEE BELOW:


As with all affirmative defenses, the defendant admits to committing a crime. In a privileged act, the defendant is admitting to having caused a death (homicide), but the law has long defined certain and specific acts that under any other circumstances would be wrong, constitute a crime, and be punishable by both imprisonment and fines. For example, in a perfect self defense affirmative defense, the accused admits to having committed a homicide, but asserts a claim that the homicide was necessary and a defensive act was required to protect himself or another from imminent death or serious bodily injury. In other words, the defendant is asking the state to excuse him of criminal liability for the murder he committed.

A police officer who in pursuit of a fleeing felon shoots and kills the felon may be privileged under the law. Whether his act if privileged depends on many factors, but generally speaking, the act would be privileged if the felon posed a danger of imminent death to the officer or another person, but may not be privileged if the death was connected to a previous argument between the police officer and the victim. In other words, privileged acts have limits.

www.vanwagnerwood.com...



Are we having fun yet GG?? are we making any progress?

heh who am I kidding,, of course you can't, agree, because if you did, your attempts to get someones criticism of Obama to stop by painting them in a corner of Hypocrisy would leave you to do some soul searching when you discover their is none.

That maybe just maybe all YOU people who have no idea why you are destroying whats left of the economy by electing one of the architects of its destruction in addition to the shame for blaming the guy that tried to warn us in 2005 and the ONLY one running who has ever really fought for you. Now we are just an hour away mountain time of the final chapter of the late great United States of America and the tragic failure to find a way continue the American Experiment

Barack Obama, Change we can all believe in but we will be saying very soon during the time of the testing, "I can't believe this!" " I just can't believe it" and ill be saying, Obama, just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.
.



[edit on 4-11-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Think tank founded by Rashid. Rashid was the controller of the group. Or will you claim the people who gave money to the NAZIs weren't giving money to Hitler? Will you claim people who have money to Malcom X's group weren't giving money to Malcom X? And what is the big deal? McCain AND Obama knew this guy. McCain funded him, Obama had a special night on the beaches of Hawaii with him or what ever. But Ron Paul had no contact with him, or Ayers.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join