I'm just providing the links, and I'll leave you all to tear each other apart over them.

Refute the credibility as much as you wish - they're just as credible as other sources that have been used in past discussions.

G. Gordon Liddy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_100134.html)

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

David Ifshin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/mccains-own-60s-radical-p_b_132032.html)

But what about McCain's own associations with former 60's radicals. Indeed, until just a few years ago, McCain openly boasted not only about his passing friendship but also his deep collaboration with one of the most prominent of Vietnam-era student radicals, David Ifshin. The same David Ifshin who denounced America on Radio Hanoi as McCain sat locked up as a POW.

Have a nice day.

Garfield is pointing out that the source you've provided is administrated by a known Left-wing individual, who has in the past demonstrated/supported hateful behaviour towards members, both past and present, of the Republican party. Clearly, this casts serious doubt on the credibility of your source.

I'll admit to not knowing the full history of the source, but I wasn't aware that I needed to know everything about them to use them. Conversely, many right-wing websites are also guilty of supporting hateful behaviour towards members of other parties.

I think your intentions were well meaning, Astor. But to make your point, you're going to have to find less biased sources, or you won't be able to convince anyone.

My intentions were really three-fold:

1. To even the playing field in the regards to 'wild accusations'
2. To show how easy it is for something to blown out of proportion.
3. And to show that no one candidate is 'clean', as it were.

Maybe I should have said something about it in my OP, but I thought that it would detract from the purpose.

Nonetheless, some of the points raised in them are pretty interesting.

While the source the information is coming from may have a strong left bias, the data is presented in a pretty straightforward and even manner. All you need to do is look at the facts presented to see that McCain has the same tenuous ties to the radicals listed as he condemns Obama for having.

While the source the information is coming from may have a strong left bias, the data is presented in a pretty straightforward and even manner. All you need to do is look at the facts presented to see that McCain has the same tenuous ties to the radicals listed as he condemns Obama for having.
That being said, in my personal opinion the administrator's own bias still casts doubt on the reliability of the information presented, whether it's presented in a straightforward manner or not. Biased data is still biased, whether it's organised well or not.

Regardless of what anyone might say, both candidates have ties and relationships with individuals or groups that the opposition sees as controversial. It happens in every election - and this is undoubtedly the most heated and high profile elections in American history. There's a lot at stake, and each side seems to be willing to do whatever it can to tear at the other.

I'll admit to not knowing the full history of the source, but I wasn't aware that I needed to know everything about them to use them. Conversely, many right-wing websites are also guilty of supporting hateful behaviour towards members of other parties.


Uh the sources, I've used to my knowledge have not gone anywhere near the level of bashing that Huffington Post has, to my knowledge they were actually sympathetic to Ted Kennedy when he had his health scare. Whereas the Huffington Post goes after an old lady cheering that she got seriously hurt just because she's the widow of President Reagan.


My intentions were really two-fold:

1. To even the playing field in the regards to 'wild accusations'
2. To show how easy it is for something to blown out of proportion.
3. And to show that no one candidate is 'clean', as it were.


You accomplished your third objective, and ordinarily would have accomplished your second objective, except for the fact Obama has an extremely flimsy resume compared to McCain.

However on your first objective, in my opinion you actually added to the credibility of the blog sites I've used because they haven't gone into the hate tactics that Huffington Post has.

Uh the sources, I've used to my knowledge have not gone anywhere near the level of bashing that Huffington Post has, to my knowledge they were actually sympathetic to Ted Kennedy when he had his health scare. Whereas the Huffington Post goes after an old lady cheering that she got seriously hurt just because she's the widow of President Reagan.
Wrong. The general public posted these hateful comments about Nancy Reagan, not the authors of the Huffington Post. snipped sarcastic comment

However on your first objective, in my opinion you actually added to the credibility of the blog sites I've used because they haven't gone into the hate tactics that Huffington Post has.
Again, the general public, not the Huffington Post.

You regularly link Newsbusters.org, which doesn't often shy away from expressing their disdain of Obama. But they do it in pretty much the same way the Huffington Post does about McCain. So please, enough with the double standards. Your sites have just about as much credibility as the Huffington Post.

Case in point: This post (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/10/28/christianity-today-hits-media-misunderstanding-palins-evangelical-chri) on Sarah Palin's Christian Faith or whatever received this comment (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/10/28/christianity-today-hits-media-misunderstanding-palins-evangelical-chri#comment-761308) linking this hate-filled video (http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr10-17-08.html) in which the pastor denounces Obama's mother as 'trash' and claims to know what his grandmother thought of him.

If this isn't hatemongering, I don't know what is.

That being said, in my personal opinion the administrator's own bias still casts doubt on the reliability of the information presented,I am inclined to agree, though with the information presented one can look into the facts and determine that yes, those tenuous ties between John McCain and the listed radicals do exist.

In my opinion, the important thing to note is that there is near 100% certainty that the Obama campaign is well aware of these ties, and has determined that they are not relevant to the issues at hand, and would only serve as an attempt to distract or frighten voters.

The McCain campaign on the other hand has apparently determined that there is no other possible route to victory outside of running the worst smear campaign I have seen in my (admittedly limited) exposure to politics and trying to gain votes through fear mongering. They spent a few weeks really pushing the Bill Ayers connection, and now that it has proven ineffective they've moved on to the Obama = Socialist issue.

To clarify for anyone that's confused on this.

Astor is allowed to use any source he wishes, Garfield as you yourself use suspect sources for your support it is hypocritical for you to make the statements you have made.

Any more of this bull**** "wah your sources are party weighted" will be met with further infractions and post removals.