Ron, anyone for which you have to explain that much of what he says and does on such a consistent basis must either be illiterate or trying to cover up either his lies or his true statements that he has to backpedal about. And, obviously, the man is not illiterate.

Oh, wait, that's right, I forgot that what he says doesn't mean anything just like his voting record. I just remembered you revealing that to me.

Wow, where would I be without your guiding light, Ronno?

Mark, do you think Ron would...... eh...... you know?

ok, truffle. so let me guess, you DO find yourself inclined to believe what mccain says though, right?

i hear what you are saying but you are wrong here for 2 reasons: 1) clearly people aren't able to understand him because he really is smarter than them (is this elitist or simply realistic? sounds a lot like the current debate...) and 2) people DO understand but they have certain political motivations that cause them to spin doctor so that people don't even have a chance to listen to what he has said.


i'm not sure if you are demonstrating 1, 2 or some combination of the above by saying this because i said the context of a voting record is important and what he said isn't what you are spinning it to mean.

You just can't debate at all, can you? All you can do is deflect through attack.

I, like millions of other Americans, am desperately seeking an honest candidate who has some chance of doing what they say they will. I don't give a rat's patoot what party they come from. And again, like millions of other Americans, I'm not finding much to choose from.

I would go easy Ronnie, or are you just stiring the pot to stir? You wouldn't want that kind of rep, just saying...........

what do you *really* want to debate though? you don't want to believe facts related to policies so we are at a crossroads.

so are you just not going to vote or is this going to be a "well i *reluctantly* decided to vote for john mccain because..." moment? i can't wait to hear your explanation of the because.

what are you talking about?

Can ROn answer a simple question?

Is Reverand Wright a racist?

You have not presented or referred to any of those for her to believe or disbelieve.

I can see now why you like Obama so much. Your response to any belief that someone holds that's different is to say that they're ignorant, disingenuous, or simply prejudiced. How about actually addressing the merits of what she says?

Apparently not. All he can do is poke with another question. Ron, don't turn blue holding your breath waiting for me to answer your latest question. I've answered all the others but all you've done is poke and stir. Let's call it a day. You and Neo can climb back on the coaster tomorrow, ok?

Edited to add: Thank you, Rainman, for trying.

This reminds me of a debate we had midway through 2007 on illegal immigration, and I quoted directly from the CBO data on costs of illegal immigration as well as projected costs for this, that etc...

and Ron answered that it was all opinion. Just did not have the integrity to say, "Hey, I see what this says, good data to back your positions..."

That is why people come to the conclusions that they do concerning El KaBONG.

Well we don't need little things like facts to get in the way. We just need change, post - partisanship, plain talking, etc.

how many times do people have to link things, obama make speeches or write books, have press conferences or engage in debates until it is enough? the point is i dont think any amount of showing is going to matter to one who doesn't want to see.

the "merits" of what she says is she doesn't believe them. i mean, ok. i am not faulting her for being cynical or not agreeing with nyting. i am simply asking why it seems nothing will be good enough for her and thus why she is acting like she is indecisive here.

i dont recall that debate but based on what you say, i would say that i likely questioned how they linked "costs of illegal immigration" or if they paid as much attention to the costs associated with removing immigrants; what would the net effect be?

i really don't care all that much what people here conclude about me. i want people to like me and i want to make people think but if they are so frustrated that they resort to ad hominem, so be it. it just means that there isn't a real response. you know?

Ron, do you not see that that is exactly what you have been doing? Not in a malicious way, but nevertheless.

i do.

I am not sure I have seen a debate yet in this thread, I see one side trying to and the other stonewalling or attacking the other side when they don't have a leg to stand on. And you know who you are

"I see one side trying to and the other stonewalling or attacking the other side when they don't have a leg to stand on" = "i don't like liberals and i will look at what obama says with cynicism or ignorance"

fyi people of BOLand

'She' is still looking and reading and waiting for Mr. Obama to show how he can affect the changes he has based his entire campaign on.

'She' is also looking and reading and waiting for the other two left in the race to show their hand too.

'She' reads these threads to learn. Sometimes there is an iota of something of value amid all the jabbing and emotional rantings that all too often prevail.

What some of you don't seem to realize is that there are plenty on BOL and in America, for that matter, that watch and read and listen without ever posting. If you truly wanted to further your candidate's cause, you'd tirelessly repeat and publish their ideas and try to win more votes for them rather than alienate people with foolish tirades.

you just proved my point Ron

Very well said Truffle. Thank you for your comments.

Thank goodness for Truffle being so well spoken!!!!!

isn't this called projection? Mrs. Clinton is especially adept at this, now y'all sleep well and peacefully in the greatest country in the world.

Barack Obama tries again to explain his condescending description of small-town Pennsylvanians, and manages again to pile on the condescension. RealClearPolitics has a video from Obama's meeting with the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board, in which he has this to say:

The problem was that I just mangled it, you know, which happens sometimes. The points that I were [sic] making were actually two separate points that got conflated. No. 1, that people who had felt abandoned by Washington and political leaders when it comes to an economy that's falling apart, they find stability in those things that they can count on: their faith, the traditions that have been passed down generation to generation--and in many rural communities, that includes hunting--their family, their community. Those are positive things.

They also are vulnerable to, you know, explanations for why the world is changing, and politicians seek to divide them. And sometimes politicians over the last decade have used antigay sentiment, sometimes they've used anti-immigrant sentiment, and, you know, there's a long history of quote-unquote wedge issues that I think distract from these very difficult issues that we have to deal with. And so my syntax was poor, but as a wise older woman who was talking to me the other day said, "You misspoke but you didn't lie."

With all the you-knows and the "misspoke," he's starting to sound like Hillary Clinton.


The above is attributable to James Taranto of the WSJ Online.

Mr. Taranto goes on to discuss the condescension behind the phrase "they are also vulnerable......."

Which being interpreted means the small town wahoos of Pennsylvania are too stooopid to understand me, plus they are so guilable as to believe evil Republicans that they become racist bigoted, and xenophobic.

Obama just needs to be quiet and walk away from this because the hole he is digging may not allow for a graceful recovery very soon.

This may not affect the primary voting that is left, but will surely affect his performance in the general election.