Comments & Feedback

Thank you for the kindness. I actually was about to respond and had second thoughts after reading you posting. This is what I wrote...I would value your opinion as I can;t quite decide if I should let it go.

If one does not know the difference between such words as: fact, opinion, insinuation, implication and interpretation, you will not understand the point, so I trust you do or will choose to learn as Oldcavscout's post implies he does not. It is also necessary to know and use logic, and commonsense, again lacking in the post addressed to me. It is difficult to keep this short, but I will try to streamline and choose sections to highlight as oppose to commenting (though I could) line per line.

When a person speaks or writes it alone is a fact in that they have spoken or that they have written. The content of the statement can be fact or opinion, but the manifestation of saying or writing it alone is a fact (it happened or exits/exited). When a person speaks and the words are representing someone else, it is an interpretation and possibly an opinion of the facts. THEREFORE, when you say someone has made a statement that is true ,but you do not support your supposed truth, you have not substantiated it as factual. When I have evidence that what you speak is untrue or not factual, then yes, I can rightly argue that you are wrong or worse a liar. When I prove with evidence a statement you made is not factual, again, I have proved you at best misinformed, at worst a liar.

This is important because absent of fact, you have the strong possibility of telling people lies and having the "naïve" believe it. That, in my opinion, should never be the standard for assessment of anyone. It can be destroying to a person's credibility and there are laws for this kind of abuse. I find it insulting that anyone would support saying anything about anyone that could be harmful and expect that to be acceptable or go unchallenged. I find no integrity, honor, or respect in that kind of abuse of freedom of speech. If you have legitimate differences, you should indeed state them, but you should not make them up and/or get angry with those who challenge you to prove that you are telling the truth.

"As for your church statement…"
I have addressed this so many times including earlier on this post (#), so let me try a new approach. Racism is defined in the Webster Dictionary as follows:

A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I welcome anyone to post the statement made by the Reverend that proves the charge of racism exist in him or the church. This should be easy for someone one has been said to practice it for "20+" years. Keep in mind to suggest statements made about AMERICA would be inaccurate as "America" last time I check includes all races and singles out none. In fact, some could question if separating the word AMERICA to mean only White United States citizens is in itself a racial bias. So please don't insult our fellow Americans by including statements that include the word "America" as it (should) encompass all races. Please do not include a statement when Rev.Wright says "our" "us" or "we" in describing his racism, because those terms also apply to all races. Please do not include a statement when he speaks to Sen. Obama race as Sen. Obama is two races. Other than that, feel free to post your statement that shows this Pastor/church racists. Furthermore, "circumstantial evidence" does not apply when the statements said can be proven false.

"very narrow mission"
This is evidence of how easily a person can take things out of context when they have no objectivity. Oldcavscout speaks of Johnson when the quote I used was to show Sen. Obama's own usage of words in the past proved he had not shifted. Johnson and Vietnam can surely be discussed if it was the subject or we were starting a new topic, but as it is, we were not. Injecting this is/was worthless. Just as sad is the fact that of his own admission, Oldcavscout does not understand the word "by". "I would like to point out your quote of Obama saying he would have the troops out by 2013. Guess what? He's saying 16 months now. That makes it the 2009/2010 timeframe. Again, this isn't a bad thing because he might be adapting to a changing situation. Or then again, it could be because he doesn't have a clue. But the one thing it is for sure is a shift." I do not know at what level of education would I expect a person to know the meaning of the word "by" So let me explain, "by" means "not later than. It is synonymous with "all the way through." I know these words may be hazardous to some, but if you replace "by" with either phrases I wrote, I think you will still find that "2009/2010" would be "not later than" 2013. It would also include time or years "all the way through" 2013. That said, "THIS MAN HAS NOT SHIFTED HIS POSITION". Contrary to what Oldcavscout wrote, concern about insulting the intelligence of his views or his supporters who did not know this already, really isn't what comes to my mind. The good news, however, is that I believe most other folks intelligence are safe as they already knew the definition of the word "by."

"What Obama says he is going to do is not fact because he has not done it yet."
A stupid remark as no one has ever said differently at anytime.

"Cherry-Picking", is a term used for picking the best there is to offer. I limited my sources about Sen. Obama's views on Iraq due to space. I thought dates of current and past positions that stated his unchanging views would suffice. In order for this to be true, you would need to supply proof that there is at least the same amount if not more information the shows a shift than I provide that shows he did not. Here's my list. Feel free to challenge Oldcavscout to post his:
OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ July 03, 2008
June 2008: Obama: I've Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments. Obama said, "I've also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end." [MSNBC, 6/16/08] March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation.
March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And "Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground." [Washington Post, 3/2/08] November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, "It's Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels.."Fosters, 11/28/07
November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure "We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops" And That It May "Take A Little Bit Longer" In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability. "
[New York Times, 11/1/07] November 2007: Obama: "If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I've Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration." [New York Times, 11/1/07] September 2007: Obama Said He Believed "That We Should Have All Our Troops Out By 2013, But I Don't Want To Make Promises." [NH DNC Debate, 9/26/07]

"Your facts are only facts in your mind because you believe them."
Let me make this clear, I DO NOT discount others views, but I will not accept gossip, rumors, or hearsay as truth. Asking that a person know of what they speak should not be an option. It should be an expectation. At this point, if you still believe facts are in anyone's mind, you are way beyond my help but you do have my prayers. If you find no reason to at least reexamine a contrasting view, then you in my opinion are a bigot. I do not support Sen. Obama because of what I think. I support him because of what I know. What I know is what I can support with facts. How I interpret the facts is where I find hope. Having to write this simply proves a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Thank you again! Jen

— JEN-357892

Leave a comment ...

As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.

Stop Tracking

Back To Top