Obama's New Super Powerful High Tech Computer Coming Out

I see.....thanks for clearing up your statement, Don DIego. The Annenberg society "funded" both Factcheck.org and a charity that reforms Chicago's public school system. AND a suspected terrorist is on the board of the latter - Bill Ayers. So by definition anyone asscoiatted with group "A" must also be in cahoots with anyone from group "B". Right? I mean why else would you give you money to two seemingly different entities? I think I get it now.

But wait ! The Annenberg Society's founder was a Republican that served under Richard Nixon and "funded" Ronald Reagan's presidential bids. But his same society gave money to Bill Ayers too .... soooooo what do we make of this by Don Diego's logic. Hmmm...obviously Ronald Reagan must be a terrorist and share a biased political ideology with Bill Ayers.

Here's some links for Don Diego to play with:
The highly political and terror inducing - ANnenberg Challenge - that reforms public schools in Chicago

Its Republican founder and BFF of Ronald Reagan Walter Annenberg



Links are provided by the non-profit group Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of the political affiliation of the funders of this group. I hope they are not terrorists.

On a related note...I helped fund
Chrystal House (school reform charity) this year which is run by Republican Fundraising queen Chrystal Dehaan. Not sure what that means exactly. I'll defer to Don Diego to connect the dots and conclude what that means about my politics.

I like Jimmy Wales I recall him from his Internet porn days when he ran Bomis. He always had a knack for finding unusual ways to make money. One day your doing Internet porn the next day your hob knobbing with British Royalty and Rupert Murdoch. People have all sorts of strange associations with each other.

pjstroh keeps writing things that are not so.

pjstroh posted this:

Pj, . . . pj, . . . pj, . . .

So, here are some facts, . . . again:

__Bill Ayers is not a suspected terrorist; he is an admitted terrorist. He documented his activities as a revolutionary bomb maker in his autobiography.

__The Board Chairmanship pjstroh refers to is unclear.
• Barack Obama was the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), not Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers, however, did author the grant application to the Annenberg Foundation to establish the CAC, . . . and soon thereafter did become Chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (CSRC) which received funds from the CAC which was chaired by Barack Obama. (DonDiego opines the reader is pr’by getting’ the picture about now.)
• Barack Obama and Bill Ayers were later co-directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago.

__DonDiego did not state: “So by definition anyone asscoiatted [sic] with group "A" must also be in cahoots with anyone from group "B". It sounds sorta nonsensical. It is not “DonDiego’s logic.” (But, that it is not a logical proposition, does not mean it never happens. See immediately preceeding two points.)

__Since DonDiego does not subscribe to the logical precept made-up by pjstroh, . . . i.e. that individuals in two groups funded by the Annenberg Foundation must be in cahoots, . . . he cannot conclude that “Ronald Reagan must be a terrorist and share a biased political ideology with Bill Ayers.” In fact, he doubts it.


DonDiego recommends to all posters not to waste time stating what someone else means, or what someone else’s motives are, or how stupid or evil someone else is, or even just make stuff up to personally attack another poster.
One should Just address the facts, . . . acknowledge or refute them as one wishes

There's a word for people who resort to guilt by association. And there's a picture too!

I'm digging Don Diego's new rationale for not reading stuff.

For instance, conservatives like Don Diego can now disregard the Harvard Law Review because it was once edited by Barack Obama.



And liberals can stop paying attention to the Harvard Law Review because it was once edited by Ted Cruz.



Always trust a conservative to come up with new rationales for being ignorant!

Buts its not guilt by association...it guilt by a 3rd derivative of association.

Don Diego does not take exception to Factcheck.org directly.
He does not take exception to the Annenberg Foundation directly
He does not take exception to Annenberg Challenge directly.
He takes exception to one board member of the annenberg Challenge and uses that person to discredit factcheck.org....an organization that person is not involved with on any level.

So next time any of our posters get busted for spreading false information you can either:
(1) admit you are wrong and salvage your integrity
(2) find a notorious friend of a friend of a friend of the source used to bust you...and double down on your false information

DonDiego does not understand what "guilt" has to do with this discussion. DonDiego does not know who is guilty of what. Folks are entitled to have different opinions. Folks are entitled to have incorrect opinions. That's what makes life interesting, . . . leads to stuff like white bread and whole wheat bread, Fords and Chevrolets and Subarus, thermonuclear warfare, etc.. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has a few.

The issue, lest one forgets, is that citing Factcheck.org on a political matter is of questionable value as it has a liberal bias. That's it ! That's all !

One pertinent fact is that the funding for Factcheck.org comes from the Annenberg Foundation.
DonDiego presented some historical facts to support possible bias at Factcheck.org including associations among the Annenberg Foundation, Bill Ayers, Barack Obama.

So, there's pjstroh again informing the reader what DonDiego thinks:
__"Don Diego does not take exception to Factcheck.org directly." - No, DonDiego does take exception to Factcheck.org's opinion that President Obama has the authority to provide Congresspeople a subsidy to purchase Obamacare health insurance. He recognizes factcheck.org is free to publish whatever it wishes.
__"He does not take exception to the Annenberg Foundation directly." - DonDiego opines The Annenberg Foundation may spend it's money as it wishes; DonDiego may well disagree with some of the causes which it funds, but it is none of DonDiego's business.
__"He does not take exception to Annenberg Challenge directly." - Again DonDiego suspects The Annenberg Foundation could have spent its money more wisely; subsequent analyses of the effects of the Annenberg Challenge on Chicago public schools suggest little effect. Again, it is none of DonDiego's business.
__"He takes exception to one board member of the [A]nnenberg Challenge and uses that person to discredit factcheck.org....an organization that person is not involved with on any level." - This is nonsense. DonDiego takes exception to President Barack Obama granting an unauthorized subsidy to Congresspersons. pjstroh cited Factcheck.org's support of President Obama's granting the unauthorized subsidy; DonDiego provided facts which suggest a liberal bias at Factcheck.org. [In the original discussion pjstroh cited Factcheck.org to support his opinion and DonDiego cited Congressman Pittenger (R-NC) to support his opinion. There's nothing wrong with citing a liberal opinion to support a liberal position or citing a conservative opinion to support a conservative position. But it is a good idea to know about whomever one is citing.]
[n.b. pjstroh appears to believe that DonDiego taking exception to something is more important that DonDiego thinks it is.]


"So, next time any of our posters get busted for spreading false information, . . .blah, . . .blah, . . .blah" - DonDiego requests pjstroh cite the "false information" which DonDiego has "spread". DonDiego requests pjstroh distinguish between "false information" and "opinion".

Oh, and DonDiego begs pjstroh not to tell people what DonDiego thinks, . . . again. One need only ask.

For the record, DonDiego has made no effort to disregard the Harvard Law Review.

I dont pretend to understand what Don Diego "thinks" - I simply point to what Don Diego "writes". Don Diego wrote his posts in English and do not need to be translated.

In has last post he writes this:
" DonDiego does take exception to Factcheck.org's opinion that President Obama has the authority to provide Congresspeople a subsidy to purchase Obamacare health insurance."

Yes - he does take exception. And he rationalizes it in print (not my interepretation of his print) by connecting that group to someone that is not affiliatted with them on any level.

I do not have to "interpret" what Don Diego's conclusions are about Bill Ayer's and his "connections" with Factcheck.org. Don Diego spells it out for everyone to read in a very fun and nebulous game of connect the dots that ultimately links a board member from one group to a completely different group that he is not associatted with in any way, shape or form. I also showed a similar game could be used to connect Bill Ayers to Ronald Reagan. No need to "interpret" that either. My posts are also in English.


My conclusion is that Ronald Reagan does not necessarily subscribe to the same political ideology that Bill Ayers does on the basis of a common benfactor. Don Diego comes to a very different conclusion (in print) about this dynamic between factcheck.org and Bill Ayers.

All I have to say is that the Jets beat the Bills yesterday