His logic paths are all over.

You wrote:
“I did not say there was no way to judge Obama’s character other than investigating Ayers.”

But you also wrote:
“To find out a politician’s values, one needs to look at the decisions he’s taken. Obama hasn’t taken any decisions, so we have to inquire into his history.”

I’d be happy to let you try to have it either way.

If we don’t need to know details about Ayers to know who Obama really is, why is the Ayers Bonfire of the Hypotheticals the focus of your Grand Inquisition of Obama?

If we do need to know about Ayers to know about Obama’s values, why do you claim to be certain that all the decisions I showed that he has made demonstrate poor character?

And, OB, I don’t blame you for being tired. Must be a lot of work trying to answer for all your self contradictions. Somehow I think you’ll find the energy to keep up the innuendo and trash talk, but not to do any careful thinking about why Fox News talking points only work when the target can’t fire back.

But, of course, your lambaste is also a lengthy confession that you were simply lying when you said Obama has made no decisions.

Obama has made no decisions of any consequence. (A decision whether to have paper or plastic, which would be momentous in the Obama scheme of things, is effectively no decision at all.) Voting “present” is not a decision. A decision in this context is making a choice on an issue of moment, and being on the hook for the sequelae of that decision. Deciding how best to protect this nation from terrorists, for example.

and that there’s no way to judge his character other than by finding out whether he sat next to or across the table from Ayers at some post Apartheid rally booze up

You’re setting up a straw man again by sharpening my point. I did not say there was no way to judge Obama’s character other than investigating Ayers; I said that, in the absence of any decisions or accomplishments, we must turn to Obama’s history, of which his relationship with Ayers is a part.

And that was true, and remains true.

Furthermore, if Ayers is of no importance or relevance, why hide a connection to him, when one obviously exists.

This grows tiresome, and while I have no doubt that you will one day make a fine adult, I don’t wish to participate further in your education. But you might profitably consider the following questions:

Why does Obama refuse to disclose even his major at Columbia? What possible reason could he have? If you’d gone to college, would you keep secret the subject you had studied? Why would anyone do that? Doesn’t that give you just a pause for thought?

The final piece of the puzzle is seen how Biden is being shunted over into a closet in the Executive
Office Building. The man who thought “FDR gave fireside chats in 1929″ despite his 35 years in the Senate, can’t really be bothered to provide imput. Which is good, considering his imput, against the
Alaska pipeline, for partition of Iraq, for FISA and VAWA has been historically wrongsided at a quantum level. His support by subprime’s leading
players and the credit card issuers really don’t suggest anything good. So clearly on that score, Sarah was a better choice, she would have tempered McCain’s more accomodationist attitudes on energy, foreign policy, the courts, et al. That was why there was a full court press to destroy her,
abetted by all the usual suspects.

But, of course, your lambaste is also a lengthy confession that you were simply lying when you said Obama has made no decisions and that there’s no way to judge his character other than by finding out whether he sat next to or across the table from Ayers at some post Apartheid rally booze up. You find all kinds of ways to judge Obama’s character and judgment without that. Case closed, OB. You don’t even believe yourself!

A life long Republican is someone who votes for Obama, in Bogey’s world.

That’s a neat way to lie.

Most Democrats believe the MSM is biased towards conservatives and big corporations.

So, no, it does not support Bogey’s bogus propaganda points.

The most essential, universally known decision Obama made was to oppose the Iraq war at a time when his opponents, his own party and most of the country favored it.

Ridiculous. Some totally unknown wanker in the state senate in the middle of nowhere runs his yap and then holds himself out as a sage after making the cheapest of all cheap bets by telling mush-headed liberals (not looking in any particular direction here) exactly what Party apparatchiks have declared to be the Party line. He staked out an extreme position with the expectation that either a) it would gain traction, and he could point back to it later, or b) if it were proven wrong, it would sink without trace. So no points awarded for that, especially because ultimately he was wrong anyway.

Evidence: you don’t hear squat about that decision now, do you? When is the last time Obama even mentioned Iraq in a speech? He recently admitted that he would have to assess Iraq in light of conditions on the ground – something that all candidates, except him, have maintained all along (he was originally going to pull out troops in 16 months, come hell or high water; now he’s backed off that). And he’s keeping Gates on board. If he thought Iraq was a disaster today, why would he do that?

Because Obama’s original bleat was proven wrong. You don’t hear squat about the Messiah’s opposition to the surge either – also proven dead wrong. Now it’s all about the economy, “hope,” “change,” and anything else that will appeal to the cognitively disenfranchised.

It’s clear at this juncture that Obama was 100% wrong about Iraq, and had he been in office 18 months ago, we’d have choppers lifting people off rooftops there today.

Obama’s money-where-his-mouth-is decisions on FISA

Where he reversed his position.

But no, O-Beard, you want to throw down some cockamamie barrage of innuendo about what you don’t know about Obama’s 25-year-old Columbia University report card.

Didn’t go to college, did you? It shows. Report cards end at high school.

Answer me one question: what did Obama major in?

You don’t know. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else in America, as far as I know.

And you really have the chutzpah to complain that Gibson is arrogant?

Where did I say that?

The entire point of your interview is to “trap” Obama on constitutional law, his forte.

No, you need to work on reading comprehension. First, it was you I trapped, and it was child’s play to do so. If you re-read the thread, my original question was not directed to Obama’s knowledge of con law (until you opened that can of worms) but rather, in essence, whether he would pardon Ayers today knowing what he now knows. That cuts to his values, without the simpleminded expedient of asking him what his values are.

because you have zero facts about Obama and Ayers, other than that the two lived in the same city and were, occasionally, at the same place at the same time.

The dearth of facts is exactly what I’m trying to address.

What you don’t understand and voters did is that even if Ayers and Obama were every bit as friendly as you nakedly presume they were, it is an irrelevant detail, given all the other evidence we have about Obama’s character and values.

Then why does Obama hide the relationship? “Just a guy in the neighborhood?” A guy who has babysat for him, and hosted his coming-out party? No sale.

And most Obama voters don’t even know who Pelosi, Reid, or Frank are, so there’s your calibration on their information level.

As a liberal

Yes, that was apparent from the cognitive skills. Prediction: you will be disillusioned with your Messiah within a year.

“To find out a politician’s values, one needs to look at the decisions he’s taken. Obama hasn’t taken any decisions, so we have to inquire into his history.”

The most essential, universally known decision Obama made was to oppose the Iraq war at a time when his opponents, his own party and most of the country favored it. The consensus is that decision is what got him the nomination.

Ten seconds at Google gives us this:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/

Obama’s money-where-his-mouth-is decisions on FISA, Immigration, funding the Iraq war and health insurance for children.

But no, O-Beard, you want to throw down some cockamamie barrage of innuendo about what you don’t know about Obama’s 25-year-old Columbia University report card. Worse, you flaunt the depth of your delusion by pretending that your fabrication that Obama “hasn’t made any decisions” won’t get the flick-of-the-wrist debunking it begs for.

Yet again your entire line of questioning presumes guilt and, worse, your pre-emptive bragging presumes that the average American Republican swing voter — the ones who got Obama elected — wouldn’t see right through that.

And you really have the chutzpah to complain that Gibson is arrogant? Talk about condescension. The entire point of your interview is to “trap” Obama on constitutional law, his forte.

As you may recall, Palin couldn’t even name a Supreme Court case that mattered to her. More important, remember how the “conservative” media howled about the unfairness and/or irrelevance of such a question.

How obvious do you want to make it that the lynchpin of your analysis is the application of double standards?

Playing Palin in your mind, you think you’d destroy Gibson by pointing out that his questions were poorly researched. Yet here you are on fishing expedition in a swimming pool, inventing hypotheticals because you have zero facts about Obama and Ayers, other than that the two lived in the same city and were, occasionally, at the same place at the same time.

What you don’t understand and voters did is that even if Ayers and Obama were every bit as friendly as you nakedly presume they were, it is an irrelevant detail, given all the other evidence we have about Obama’s character and values.

You made the mistake of plain speaking in your ludicrous assertion that Obama “has made no decisions.” The conservative media noisemakers you’re trying to imitate are smarter than that. They always left it vague at: “We don’t know enough where he came from and what he’s done.”

What voters showed they knew, of course, is plenty about where Obama came from and what he’s done. More than enough to reasonably answer any questions about what kind of president he will make.

Contrast that with the right-wing media noisemakers. They screamed at the top of their lungs that Obama is a Marxist with a secret past. This made it so much easier for Obama to win the debates. When he showed up and gave mostly straightforward answers — relative to the norm — it cemented the deal for swing voters, who became convinced that Obama’s critics on the right were delusional.

The non-delusional could see all along that Obama, very, very far from a Marxist terrorist-sympathizer, was preparing to appoint a cavalcade of economists and national security experts from the very center of the establishment.

Low and behold, reality has dawned and is showing, day after day after day, how monumentally silly it is to assert that Obama’s Ayers connection is relevant, given that, as president, he’s surrounding himself exclusively with centrist and center-right establishment officials — most with impeccable credentials.

As a liberal, I do hope you’ll keep using your delusions, O-beard. They helped elect Obama and will, I suspect, keep on helping.