Touché. Particularly cutting coming from someone who so clearly has everything figured out that they don’t even need to be bothered with attempting to justify or explain it when called on it, instead pulling a “NO, U!!!” and dancing back behind the blackout curtain surrounding your comfortable little universe, satisfied that you won’t actually be forced into the kind of self-examination that comes only from actually confronting others and allowing their questions, concerns, and even insults to pull and probe at your beliefs and ideals, examining them and by interacting with them causing some level of modification, either strengthening or weakening. And if you’re expecting changes to others’ opinions to come instantaneously, perhaps you should pack it in and not even bother attempting to argue with anyone.

Anyway, thanks for doing precisely what I anticipated you would do. Since you have no actual response aside from the kind of finger pointing one might expect from PeeWee Herman for any of the thoughtful points I brought up earlier, how about you just pretend I slung a bunch of creative insults at you and we’ll just call it a day.

Be seeing you!

Of course, now the credible of the source becomes the question.

And I could easily see that as well, if either of those things made any sense at all in the context of the conversation, which they don’t. But I’m done trying to explain that to Mike.

Plus I never said he was a Muslim, just raised with its traditions at some point in his life. He acts like he NEVER did anything remotely related to the Muslim faith. Why?

I do not care what his religion is…I am concerned about his efforts to muddy the waters.

Going back to my point, please show me where the MSM has done any detail into his life…do NOT show me a quote from the stop the smears website, but from an independent entity.

I do not believe Sen Obama is a Muslim. He is now a Christian and I am glad for that. However, I am concerned that despite quotes in his book about this, evidence that he was listed as Muslim in Indonesia, and his father being a Muslim, he still will not just say or explain the confusion. That would end it. Saying that you are not Muslim, is technically true…NOW, but not saying that you were raised in its ways or were related to this faith in some regard just makes things muddled.

So let’s analyze these two possible conclusions:

A) Obama the crypto-Muslim. Well, shit, this is a really serious accusation, considering no politician has ever lied about their religious beliefs or anything. We can all trust that George W. Bush is a Christian even though nearly everything he seems to have ever done is so self-serving that it would make Jesus roll over in his gra… er, on the right hand of his father. And hey, it’s not like Americans tend to have any kind of irrational religious bias or anything that would immediately kill the chances of any non-Christian.

There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, and maybe you agree. Shame there’s so much of a bias against it that anyone who even admits to having read the Quran is basically automatically disqualified from office. Does it really matter, though, as long as he does a good job as president? Considering every politician is guaranteed to lie about their religious beliefs in one direction or another, it’s like getting all upset because Obama breathes air.

B) What a flub! It’s… not, really, unless you’re thinking it’s awesome to take advantage of and incite American bigotry over a slip-up.

I’d still like to know why you don’t see any difference between the typical fuckups people make when cameras are on them nearly constantly, and someone looking like a total moron on nearly every of the rare occasions when they actually open their mouth in public. Sure, she did all right in the debate (not spectacular, but all right), but it’s clear that well-articulated, well-reasoned, intelligent answers seem to be the exception and not the rule for her.

Please actually respond to me this time instead of cherry-picking whatever point is easiest to guffaw at and railing on it like a rabid chimpanzee, or getting all “you make no sense” over something that anyone with a basic reading comprehension could parse; otherwise, I’m afraid I’m going to have to resort to ad hominem attacks which, while entirely non-conducive to debate, are at least an amusing way of eliciting the same dismissal from you.

A) Nobody in their right mind could claim that Palin and McCain tend to be more upbeat about things than Obama and Biden, or that they tend to focus more on positive issues than dire ones — especially with the “Obama met a few times over the course of a decade with a former suspected terrorist from forty years ago who is now a college professor while they were both working to improve the educational system of Illinois” bullshit;

B) Taking the other interpretation (voting against negatives/positives), I think there are a greater number of Americans who would vote against the myriad McCain/Palin policies they feel are “negative” or “deal-breakers” than there are who would vote for anything they might consider “positive” put forth by the same.

But yeah, if it’s all about who puts forward the most “positive” image, or focuses on the most “positive” issues, why don’t we just elect Santa Claus and a puppy, was the point I was making, Mike, since it apparently wasn’t clear enough.