First off, I never said I was a "Obamaniac". Nor did I imply it. The fact is I'm not. Nor am I a Hillary supporter or a grandpa John supporter. I don't really like any of them.

That being said though, what I described was an observation on my part. That's all. An observation that apparently is in violation of MM's point of view. So thanks MobyCat for at least saying that Obama is spot on for stating that we cannot expect other countries to not have the resources we demand and not get pissed off at us. That's not a fair attitude. It's arrogant. And that is why we, as Americans, have a bad reputation in this world. As a society, we are arrogant and believe that with our money we can tell anyone else how they should live. If that means they have to suffer at our expense, too bad. We come first.

As far as MM's comments - what can I say except that MM is just plain wrong. I don't have any problems differentiating between declarative statements of fact and statements of opinion. The problem comes in when someone tries to make a "declarative statement of fact" only to have it pointed out that it is opinion, not fact and then have the person making the statement backstroke on what he said saying it WAS opinion, despite that he meant it to SOUND like it was factual. For example, on one point MM claims that:

Which is what I pointed out to begin with:
While what I was referring to is what he said as:

Yet somehow I was wrong for pointing out what he admitted to? The fact is, when you start by saying that "There is no doubt...", you are clearly trying to get others to accept what you are about to say as fact. It goes like this, you say there is no doubt so others won't disagree with you. Then when it is pointed out that your "there is no doubt" may be wrong, you get all offended because someone saw through your guise.

That is what REALLY happened here.

Secondly, when I said:

I will stand by it. The question is not whether it is true. Opinions cannot be proven true or false, that's why they are called OPINIONS. They are not necessarily based on fact. They are based on what a person FEELS about a subject. The question is what are the people's opinions. I never said that it was fact. Nor did I imply it as such. That's why I said "I'd be willing to bet". I could be wrong, but based on my views, I BELIEVE it could be true.

Finally, when MM states:

I may have been being a bit presumptuous. When the votes are counted in November, we'll see then who is being presumptuous.

The last sentence though is just plain misleading. Your intent was to show that there are many people that don't like Obama in an effort to show that I am wrong. So let's look at the facts. The Democrats are still running a very tight race (while I'll admit that Hillary is losing ground, but that's beside the point here). Therefore both Hillary and Obama are each getting about half of the votes since they are the only two in the race. Well that and the fact that in most states, only Democrats can vote in the Democratic primaries. The result is that it wouldn't be as tight of a race as it is otherwise. So while you say that about half of Democrat voters aren't voting for Obama in a clear attempt to discredit him, the same can be said against Hillary; about half of the Democrats in the primaries aren't voting for her either! So while what you said is essentially true, it is misleading at best.

I guess what I'm saying is that whether you like it or not, there will be people that disagree with you and what's more, trying to take the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude won't sway voters. Well maybe the ones that aren't smart enough to make up their own minds. But the rest of us, which is MOST of us, we see through your tactics.

And yes, you are willing to show research to prove your points. I credit you for that. I've done the same when needed. However, what we are talking about here is opinion and reasoning. And that is all. There have been no facts given here and no one should represent what they are going to say as fact unless it IS fact. Elections aren't based on fact. They are based on opinion. The candidate with the best national opinion is the one that will generally win. The facts won't be known until AFTER they are in office. (For better or worse... )