Entirely speculation on your part. It gives your POV no substantive support.
Just so you know, you're the third person this week (the other two were off FR) who has pointed me to a story about McCain that describes his medical care ploy as a total cave and lies by omission about it.
I did not point you to that article specifically, endorse it or mention the subject. You picked that out of 79 links. Presumably because you could make a point with it. But you have to hedge your points and prop them up with personal assumptions.
Now, I'm not saying all your evidence is crap (I even used a couple of them myself earlier in the primary season) but it looks like you just collect stuff critical of McCain and don't give any real thought to how well the evidence actually holds up.
I don't want McCain to be our President. That is true. CFR is all I needed to know about in that respect. He is unfit for command on that basis alone. I collect the links and share them because I want people to be informed about what kind of repugnant anti-American weasel McCain is. I have removed ONE link because it was shown to me to be ridiculous garbage. There are a lot of links there and I didn't vet them all either to cull those that don't support my agenda or decide that they were overboard. I made a reasonable effort to see that each provided some substantial information from sources that could be checked. I didn't annoint myself the arbiter of truth or falsehood in regards to them. I leave it to anyone interested in looking at them to make up their own minds.
What other conclusion can I reach when you're using articles from Devvy "The Oklahoma City Bombing Was an Inside Job" Kidd?
That would be a reasonable criterion, depending on your knowledge of that author that I don't share, to cast doubt on that author's work. What about the other 78 links?
Maybe you should know who Day and guys like him were before you start posting lists of "evidence" about what went on in the Hilton.
And maybe you should build your own list of articles supporting McCain.
None of this has had anything to do with your original question, my reply to it, or your hysterical reply to that.
A smart civilian friendly can figure out what carrier wing is aboard what carrier and know (from news reports) that said carrier is on station. What do you think the KGB could have found out and passed to Hanoi?
And again, if he really did willingly give them vital defense information, why was he writing about it in a national news magazine while he could still be prosecuted? In fact, as an officer, he could still get court martialed for it to this day. Are you or are you not accusing McCain of collaboration?
I did not point you to that article specifically, endorse it or mention the subject.
You posted a link to that article as part of a list of "McCain's record." Devvy Kidd says he collaborated with the Vietnamese and you included her charges as part of his "record." Take some responsibility like an adult.
You picked that out of 79 links. Presumably because you could make a point with it. But you have to hedge your points and prop them up with personal assumptions.
I picked it because of the title, nothing more. If you go back and look, you'll see I passed by stuff with titles that plainly advertised they had to do with the false collaboration charges.
It's cute that you're trying to put me on the defensive, like I played some sort of trick on you. You're the one who decided to use that article, and the one who decided to pont me to the post it was in. Your accusation of personal assumptions means bupkis because I didn't make any.
I have removed ONE link because it was shown to me to be ridiculous garbage.
Great, now you've been alerted to at least two more. I look forward to you pulling them.
There are a lot of links there and I didn't vet them all either to cull those that don't support my agenda or decide that they were overboard. I made a reasonable effort to see that each provided some substantial information from sources that could be checked.
That says a lot about how much you care about the truth...and no, you didn't make a reasonable effort, or the Kidd article would not have been there.
I didn't annoint myself the arbiter of truth or falsehood in regards to them. I leave it to anyone interested in looking at them to make up their own minds.
What you did would be called libel if somebody did it to you. "Hey, just because I posted a link to an article saying that TigersEye fathered 50 illegitimate children and doesn't pay a dime in child support and called it his record doesn't mean I should be held responsible for that. I'm just letting people make up their own minds." Grow up.
That would be a reasonable criterion, depending on your knowledge of that author that I don't share, to cast doubt on that author's work.
The problem with your premise is that I'd never heard of Devvy Kidd before today, and I found the Oklahoma City information just by following a link right next to the McCain article. In other words, I found all that out while doing what you should have done.
What about the other 78 links?
You've shown that you could care less whether any of the stuff in those links is true, but now you want me to do your job for you and evaluate them? I get paid by the hour to evaluate sources, so if you want to hire me, freepmail me. Be warned that I don't come cheap.
Otherwise, do your own job.
And maybe you should build your own list of articles supporting McCain.
Ah, the old "I got caught screwing up, so the critic is a lazy person who should try doing it himself" defense. Maybe I will, but that doesn't change the fact that you're little better than those libs who pass the "Bush resume" email around and actually believe the crap in it. We actually had a guy who submitted portions of it to our local paper as part of his weekly column, and when it was pointed out that most of it was false he said (in his apology for plagiarizing it) that he should never have been expected to vet it, but just put it out there for us all to judge on our own. He even called his column "Bush's dismal record." Sound familiar?
None of this has had anything to do with your original question, my reply to it, or your hysterical reply to that.
Ah, still with the charge of hysterics. Hey, I know McCain's not a conservative, but I also know that FDR, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter were all libs, but only one of them had any business being commander-in-chief. A choice between FDR and Jimmy Carter is an easy pick, and AT WORST that's the choice we're making this fall.