1. he does indeed, and that's why he gave the right response: dismissal. leaving it ambiguous would only have caused the antichrist meme to get repeated and grow. (see: the afore-mentioned swift boats.)
You deliberately miscomprehend "dismissal." Dismissal in this case was his unequivocal dismissal of your specious and undisprovable assertion, not the dismissal of the idea that he's the antichrist; the dismissal you attempt surreptitiously to avoid discussing he indeed did not need to do, contrary to your claims. In fact as I said, leaving
that ambiguous only helps him--and you agree, as you posted re: the outrage over this helping outreach to evangelicals in Patel's other thread (which of course does not raise a single alarm bell in your mind, even though AFAIK this claim originated from a Dem evangelical outreach activist).
Of course, you can disagree and argue against the logic of a campaign vaguely leaving open things they do not directly want to state, because to do either would bring obvious damage and be of questionable benefit.
In any case, your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory -level argumentation leaves nothing that can be logically disproven, and any attempt to do so on my part has only been spun to show how complex and devious the conspiracy really is. It's a losing game, so again, I'll hang out with heavyweights like Obama and his unequivocal dismissal of your assertion as "ludicrous," while you slum in the intellectual ghetto with the little yipping lapdog.
Crushed: your analogy is poor. We know the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. We are debating whether or not this rhetorical attack occurred. However, much as we know the motivations of the planners of the Pearl Harbor attack because they told us, we also know the intentions of the McCain Ad planners, because they told us. You're arguing the alternative, that you know the real,
secret reason.
