You want "facts"?

Submitted by kman (United States), Nov 5, 2008 at 23:19

When I encounter someone who has resorted to "facts" that show they have little grasp of said "facts".

Daniel Pipes and numerous other people on all kinds of forums have shown how far Obama has not "distanced" himself from his associates. Making a politically expedient move when polls show that someone you have associated with is suddenly unpopular, is laughable and pathetic. Even the "Rev" Wright had no problem with Obama publically distancing himself from him. He knew enough to let his protege say whatever it took to get elected. The American public bought into a lot of obvious lies.

Long association, painfully posted here in long detail, shows the level of ignorance of the American public who, like you, suddenly found it fashionable to "get involved". Very late in the game.

Obama's blather is simply the politically expedient thing to do. Your own "babble" deserved not much more from me. You claim to want "facts" and "discussion" when clearly you are seriously deluded in both departments. When you show you have thoroughly read all the "facts", I will give you the benefit of "facts" of my own. People who come here and selectively read are badly deficient in "facts".

I don't waste a whole lot of time on people who are into fashionable politics. You have a lot of catching up to do.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".