Bill Clinton advises you to chill out, I advise you to grow up

Many Democrats and Liberals dislike Chickenhawks and Warmongers, but many, as it seems, are acting like Chicken Littles. Try to face reality here. You, Democrats, aren’t going to like everything that comes from, or is associated with, Clinton and Obama. You should also understand you can point to unethical and logically weak reasoning as often as you want and still can’t persuade some people of the veracity and wisdom of your positions. But the worst part of the behavior of some of you is that it needn’t exist if you would not only relax, as Bill Clinton says, but also reject notions of disunity and subsequent chaos in your party. This doesn’t mean you have to go against your principles and choose Clinton over Obama, and vice verse, it means you don’t let your anger take control of you; use it as a motivator, don’t feed a poison vine that might not even exist. Foolish fighting will only help create the seed of that malovelent plant and assure its deadly purpose. If you succumb, your judgement will deserve to be questions more so than that of either of your Presidential candidates.

Some common signs of know-it-all internet dumbf****

This loud mouth blathering twit stops at almost nothing (if you’re lucky) in his desire to bully everyone into agreeing with him, no matter how half-assed his reasoning is. The following are some ways of telling if you might be the victim of sharing company with him.

He frequently calls people naive, then he calls them naive again if they didn’t accept it the first time.

He ignores contrary evidence.

He assumes his sources to be perfect.

He believes information from any source he doesn’t like is false, even if it can be proven accurate.

He makes judgements based on ambiguous information and refuses to be open about the possibility that he’s being unfair, let alone to the possibility that he’s wrong.

He believes only his inconsistencies to be forgivable.

He sets up abritrary litmuses for labelling people.

He sees disagreement with him as tantamount to a sin.

He routinely distorts and simplifies your opinions.

Beware this incessant crackhead.

A place for everything and everything in its place

That means you move everything to the front until the new things you need push them to the back.

Guilt by association vs. Judging Ability

While I agree much of the criticism against Senator Obama remains based in the fallacy of 'guilt by association,' I also do not think that defense alone wholly precludes the legitimacy criticism of his association with Pastor Wright: not because it would be appropriate to assume Obama believes as Wright does with his controversial statements, it would not, but because there does appear to be unresolved, or unresolvable, questions about Obama's judgement. Perhaps the strongest question from this: If confronted with something unequivocably offensive, would Obama be quick and forceful in his condemnation, even against wise or foolish council.

But, on the matter of judgement, it is Senator McCain whom disturbs me most.

People shall debate how over zealous and vitriolic the statements are of the religious persons who are in some ways affiliated with the McCain and Obama campaigns, but to have heard that McCain's argument against a comparison of his situation with Parsley to that of Obama's with Wright, is based in large part on McCain admitting virtually full ignorance of Parsley's preachings, sermons, what have you, and having met him only a few times, whereas Obama at least knew Wright well (knowing, though, that complete understanding of others is difficult to impossible), is a worse case of judgement than the supposed blindness or denial that Obama could be accused of. At least Obama's apparent mistake is analogous to hiring a relative you knew well but over estimated. McCain's error seems like one of a panderer who did not know well his partner, and who acted with political expedience.

To the many this shall never interest

This is not a Pal Talk blog.

Have a good day.