I reviewed the last several hundred of your posts and now understand better how you think.
You are very consistent in demanding a sky high standard of proof before 'jumping on the bandwagon'. By itself, that is a very admirable attitude.
In politics, it is lethal. Beside the heavy time compression that makes extensive search for Absolute Truth impossible (Just how much Truth can we extract from a left skilled at hiding it in the next 16 days?) Truth is, sadly, not a political value.
In the first place politicians have lied so much and so consistently that voters no longer expect or demand Truth from them, and haven't for decades.
For the most part, people actually vote on feeeeeelings and familiarity, they vote for people they think of as 'just like them', not on any facts of character or ideology.
An important factor in their 'feeeeeelings' is the 'halo' surrounding 'their' candidate. If his opponents quake in their boots at the thought of offending him, they feeeeeeel pretty good about how powerful he is. If no one dares to question him, they feeeeeel like he is unquestionable and right.
When a democrat deliberately and maliciously accuses a conservative of crimes, knowing full well that no crime exists and that he created the stench out of thin air, the voters get the halo of Mr Conservative is a criminal, and Mr Radical is 'speaking truth to power'.
No one cares that the accusations are proven false two years after the election. No one.
When we fail to raise the alarm when we have real indications of or reasonable cause to believe that Mr Progressive is guilty, guilty, guilty of major crimes, moral lapses and flat out treason, we prevent the discussion of the issue. We actively deny voters an opportunity to understand the enemy and we discourage any investigation, and our inaction enables evil to triumph.
At worst, questions about reasonable doubts force Mr Jihadist Lover off topic and to talk about a subject he desperately wants to avoid, and to lie about it on the record - case in point, Bill Ayers - he's gone from just some guy in the neighborhood, to admitting that they worked together, and Ayers hosted 0bama's political start in his own living room, now we know that this guy he'd seen around in the 'hood shared an office with 0bama for THREE YEARS (although 0bama hasn't yet admitted that little factoid). Voters are starting to ask themselves if he lied to us about his relationship with Ayers, can he reeeaaallly be as truthful about everything as we thought???
Not raising the question is called Tacit Approval.
I will continue to publicly question every instance of suspicious activity, every irregularity, every lie and omission of the 'progressives' and their Anointed One that comes to my attention.
Feel free to sit on the sidelines until proof positive is available before uttering a peep.
May I remind you that questionable data about 0bama has a disturbing tendency to vanish as we are investigating it?
If 0bama gets elected, such data will never see the light of day. There won't be a truth finding two years after the election, or ever.
Do you tacitly approve of 0bama?
First of all, your apology is accepted, although quite frankly your posting was well in the limits of good taste. It is very hard to understand people when all you have are postings on this great site. You don't get to see body language, facial expressions or actions.
For me, the top four things issues this election are Terror, Economy, Border and Character. Your comments that I have highlighted above are things that I have thought much about. Yes, it angers me.
I use this forum to gather information about these four items to have meaningful discussions with my fence sitting friends. The crowd I hang with is generally conservative, with a few fence sitters and liberals. My personal goal is to obtain as much information as is possible to convince the fence sitters that the conservative positions is the best, AND to counter the arguments from the few idiot friends I have. I do want facts and data -- that makes for better arguments. I do use appeals to the emotions when appropriate, but that is used when I think it will work and on a case by case basis.
I am well aware of your claim that crap on conservatives tends to stick more than crap on liberals. I chose to fight this with fact. I also choose to toss terds at the other side with as much fact as is possible, with enough emotion and sarcasm as I think my audience can take. I am actually fairly well skilled at that.
You know a portion of me -- based on my postings -- and you have read me very well! You do not know me by my actions and I suggest that you would be very surprised at how assertive I can be without being obnoxious (unless I want to). Another skill learned.
Have a great day and thanks for the post. We are on the same side.