Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Maureen O'Donnell: "In her thesis on race in the United States (specifically in Princeton), people cannot know whether she advocated a sparate black state, as Malcolm X had done, or disagreed with the concept unless her complete thesis is available for reading."
You can know that if somebody from a reliable publication provides a reliable summary of the information contained therein. You don't have to read the entirety of "War and Peace" to know it isn't about killer clowns. However, apparently the entire thesis is available. Check the links in the article.
Maureen O'Donnell: "There's no point at all in Michelle Obama's detractors or defenders using snippets from her thesis without getting her over-all view and that can only be seen by reading the full thesis."
Actually, there is a point in Obama's defenders using snippets of her thesis, when those snippets demonstrate how the original email is taking things out of context. You don't debunk an email by saying, "Here's the entire thesis, read it." You debunk it by showing specific instances of falsehood. But sure, people should read the whole thesis if they want to know, first-hand, for absolute certain, that Michelle Obama is not advocating that white people all be rounded up and imprisoned and then turned into Soylent Whitey.
Maureen O'Donnell: "I thought there was a Freedom of Information Act in the USA, so much admired that it's been copied by many governments in western Europe."
Yes, but the Freedom of Information Act applies primarily to government institutions. I am not sure if Princeton falls under that umbrella. Anyway, the question is moot since the thesis was released.
wow, that gets you a gold medal in the Blogger Olympics, I think.
... and you have the same types of smears Kennedy faced.
Plus ca change...
Does Obama really think these e-mails have enough effect to set up a site debunking them. Anyone who wants to believe them probably will not enter the site to read the debunking. He should be more worried about what people see and hear from the targeted individuals themselves. My opinion of both Obamas comes from nothing I read (the biased MSM and other persons opinions) but from the words and actions of the Obamas themselves. I know him to be arrogant and incompetent by his words and actions. I know Michele to be racist because of her words and actions. So if someone has a differing opinion, that is their own opinion but I cannot be swayed when I have heard and seen for myself. The same goes for the opinion I have formed of the democratic party. I went to DC and saw for myself the selecting of Obama as the party nominee and anyone who believes he was not selected by the selfserving elites in the democratic party was not there to see/hear or have formed opinions from blogs and the MSM. People who form opinions from internet info are important because their votes count but if the world were perfect these blogs would not matter if the MSM would remain neutral so that persons could evaluate the news and not have to rely on opinions on the internet. Newspapers and network news has lost its credibility and that is why people have turned to other sources enabling the blogs and e-information to play such a huge part in the elections adding to the misinformation people obtain.
Kirk: "Oh you made fun of my fake name. X
wow, that gets you a gold medal in the Blogger Olympics, I think."
Huh huh, huh huh, huh huh.
So you don't really have anything to say at this point, I take it?
What's your opinion of the practice of sending out emails that are designed to mislead people? I mean, do you think that is wrong, or do you think lying to people is OK? What's your ethical take on that? As long as you're still trolling around, let's hear what you think. I am asking the quesiton in general, whether it's this election or any other.
Actually, the site isn't there for the benefit of people who believe the emails, it is there for those of us who don't believe the emails to get the right facts so that we can counter the claims made in those emails more effectively.
5designers5: "Does Obama really think these e-mails have enough effect to set up a site debunking them. Anyone who wants to believe them probably will not enter the site to read the debunking."
You miss the point. By setting up a storehouse of all the lies and then providing point-by-point rebuttals to them, everybody has access to the information. That means that people who might be inclined to defend Obama can get the best possible information to use in fighting back against the ignorance of others. It's a powerful tool, just like the MediaMatters.org site is a powerful tool for getting reliable information, or Snopes.com. Why don't you go to the site yourself -- FightTheSmears.com -- and see what it has to say? Maybe you'll learn something.
5designers5: "I know him to be arrogant and incompetent by his words and actions."
Riiiiight. Which words, which actions? You make the claim, yet you cite nothing. I have yet to see Obama do or say a single thing that qualifies as "arrogant." That is a popular angle to attack him with, but it's got nothing to back it up. It's kind of like "elitist." It's just an adjective. What some call arrogance, others call confidence. What some call elitism, some call learnedness. Both terms ring false when you register Obama's humility and humbleness, which are exhibited in abundance.
5designers5: "I know Michele to be racist because of her words and actions."
No you don't. You're just saying that because you, yourself, have made up your mind about something that you have no evidence for. You have absolutely nothing to go on here. This article pretty well debunks the idea that Michelle's college thesis is in any way racist. So what else do you have to go on? Almost everything cited as evidence for Michelle's "racism" has turned out to have no substance. The claim that she referred to "whitey" was never substantiated. The purported witness disappeared into thin air -- never existed. So it's all a scam intended to make you THINK that she's racist when in fact there is nothing to suggest it. Congratulations, you fell for it, and you didn't even bother to find out whether it was true. You wanted to believe it, so you believed it.
5designer5: "So if someone has a differing opinion, that is their own opinion but I cannot be swayed when I have heard and seen for myself."
But alas, you have not heard or seen for yourself. You have not explained any of what you say you "heard" or "saw" that would support your assertions. All you have is opinion, not observation. If you have observation, then try a little harder to share it.
5designers5: "I went to DC and saw for myself the selecting of Obama as the party nominee..."
Obama was not "selected" as the party nominee, he was elected in a series of state primaries.
5designers5: "People who form opinions from internet info are important because their votes count but if the world were perfect these blogs would not matter if the MSM would remain neutral so that persons could evaluate the news and not have to rely on opinions on the internet."
Um....what?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
