|
"Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told CNN that after meeting Obama through the Annenberg project, Ayers hosted a campaign event for him that same year when then-Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced the young community organizer as her chosen successor."
from CNN's fact check.
I don't think that it can be proven that Obama and Ayers hold hands skipping through the park, or necessarily have eachother on speed dial as "BFFE."
Did Obama have his political coming out party at Ayers' house? That little factoid leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Did Obama have his political coming out party at Ayers' house? That little factoid leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
I can understand why it would.
This party in Ayers' home was in 1996 though when Ayers' past was largely considered to be in the past. Ayers was, at that time, known as a distinguished professor and a liberal educator, respected in the Chicago political circles and certainly in some academic circles.
Five years later, Ayers goes and writes a book about his past, 'Fugitive Days', in which he doesn't exactly express regret and is very tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing. This book was published on Sept. 11 or 12, 2001, if I remember correctly. The book showed Ayers as unrepentent. Obama left the board he served on with Ayers in 2002, shortly after Ayers' past -- and his refusal to really distance himself from it -- showed a different side of Ayers.
One of Ayers' friends told me the book was "a piece of s#*&" and "the stupidest thing Bill has done". Ayers drew a cartoon of a guy holding either a bomb or a peace symbol on the inside cover of mine. The written dedication was "To Tarren, with hopes for a world at peace".
In the primaries when asked about Ayers, he said he knew the guy but he didn't take on the responsibility for his radical past. Obama calls him a professor of English, which isn't correct. Maybe he really doesn't know Ayers all that well.
Anyhow, Ayers is a radical. He's also an educator. Obama worked with him at a charity that helped to fund underfunded schools. I wouldn't want a president who hung out with unrepentent bombers. I would want a president who dedicated himself to improving schools.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Text from the presidential debate of October 15 on this topic:
MCCAIN: Well, Bob, you asked me a direct question.
SCHIEFFER: Short answer, yes, short answer.
MCCAIN: Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Sen. Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship.
We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things need to be examined, of course.
SCHIEFFER: All right. I'm going to let you respond and we'll extend this for a moment.
OBAMA: Bob, I think it's going to be important to just -- I'll respond to these two particular allegations that Sen. McCain has made and that have gotten a lot of attention.
In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Sen. McCain's campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let's get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago.
Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan's former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.
Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper.
Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that's Mr. Ayers.
Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.
It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.
Now, the reason I think that it's important to just get these facts out is because the allegation that Sen. McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling.
Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.
Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Sen. McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.
MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So -- and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room.
OBAMA: That's absolutely not true.
MCCAIN: And the facts are facts and records are records.
OBAMA: And that's not the facts.
MCCAIN: And it's not the fact -- it's not the fact that Sen. Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Sen. Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.
And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's go to the next topic and you -- we may want to get back into some of this during this next discussion. I want to ask both of you about the people that you're going to bring into the government.
And our best insight yet is who you have picked as your running mates.
Obama's big mistake on this and continues to be, he keeps blowing it off and it keeps coming across as if he is hiding something.
Obama's 1st try: I hardly even know the guy, he lives down the street from me.
Obama's 2nd try: Yeah I know him and worked with him, but I didn't even know about his past.
Obama's 3rd try: I knew about his past, but I believed he was reformed.
Obama's 4th try: Other people working on things with him as well, including republicans, what does it matter how much I knew about him. Oh yeah, there wasn't a get know thing at his house (even though we all know there was).
Deny everything Barrack, hey it (mostly) worked for Clinton.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Obama's big mistake on this and continues to be, he keeps blowing it off and it keeps coming across as if he is hiding something.
Obama's 1st try: I hardly even know the guy, he lives down the street from me.
Obama's 2nd try: Yeah I know him and worked with him, but I didn't even know about his past.
Obama's 3rd try: I knew about his past, but I believed he was reformed.
Obama's 4th try: Other people working on things with him as well, including republicans, what does it matter how much I knew about him. Oh yeah, there wasn't a get know thing at his house (even though we all know there was).
Deny everything Barrack, hey it (mostly) worked for Clinton.
Do you have any links?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh look, there's the Alaskan Independence Party! Maybe the brave souls willing to uncover Obama's imagined associations and radical leanings will want to look at that too to make sure none of the candidates for president/vice-president are similarly tainted.
Anyone?
What's that you say? The AIP stuff is just a bunch of crap that only morons and fanatics think is important or relevant? Your not interested in truth for the sake of truth? You just want to sling mud and innuendo and disguise it behind questions regarding honesty, and even then, only for your side?
Oh yeah...
Morons and fanatics, FTW.
Oh look, there's the Alaskan Independence Party! Maybe the brave souls willing to uncover Obama's imagined associations and radical leanings will want to look at that too.
Anyone?
What's that you say? The AIP stuff is just a bunch of crap that only morons and fanatics think is important or relevant? Your not interested in truth for the sake of truth? You just want to sling mud and innuendo and disguise it behind questions regarding honesty, and even then, only for your side?
Oh yeah...
Morons and fanatics, FTW.
Weren't you the one calling Alaska a piss-ant state?
|
Oh look, there's the Alaskan Independence Party!
Yeah, those crazy Alaskans - going around blowing s~~# up!
Seriously though, you are absolutely correct. People should be looking into the past (and current) associations of both candidates (and there respective running mates). Who people have associated with in the past can often give you a roadmap regarding their judgement (or lack thereof).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Weren't you the one calling Alaska a piss-ant state?
I would ask for the relevance of the statement, but I know there is none, or at best, there's some idiotic train of logic to follow in the wake of such a question. My guess is that it would basically be something like because Alaska is a piss-ant state, any wrongdoing therein must also be piss-ant, or some other poorly reasoned statement demonstrating an inability to form coherent arguments.
Fanatics and morons.
|
|
Here is the best coverage I could find about the Todd Palin/Alaskan Indpendence Party scandal that I could find. Seems that since the AP stepped in it by saying Sarah Palin had been a member of the party, no major media outlet wants to report on it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh look, there's the Alaskan Independence Party!Yeah, those crazy Alaskans - going around blowing s%#~ up!
I guess that makes them entirely innocent and peachy people after all. My bad. I guess I should've discounted whatever they did or said or advocated because they are associated with a republican candidate. Plus, it's not really fair to associate Palin with them like it is to associate Obama with terrorism. I mean, come on, Palin only participated in the activities of a group that says inflammatory things about America (or something like that, I can't really be bothered enough to care, honestly), Obama on the other hand once was part of an organization which was focused around education with someone who once did something very bad in the distant past! Clearly, Obama is the worse person. How dare he join a school board where someone else with a disagreeable past served! That bastard!!!
Seriously though, you are absolutely correct. People should be looking into the past (and current) associations of both candidates (and there respective running mates). Who people have associated with in the past can often give you a roadmap regarding their judgement (or lack thereof).
Neh. The amount of logic required to make the association, particularly with regards to the claim to which it is so obviously intended to make (Obama is a terrorist), is tortured and nonesensical. The idea that the point of discussing the association is to show that he changed his story/lied is b%!@$*~@ cover - the goal is to keep flashing the words "Obama" and "terrorist" and hoping that's the connection that sticks. The dog and pony show about "was he truthful" is just a vehicle to introduce a concept that is completely without integrity or basis (Obama is a terrorist).
If I remember correctly wasn't there something in a Michael Moore movie about Bush's family having deals with the Bin Laden family such that when the 9/11 went down the bin laden family was flown out whilst all other air traffic was grounded?
Sorry but if this thread is accurate shouldn't she look before throwing mud?
Why? She's not a member of the Bush family, as far as I know. Or are you trying to associate her with everything ever done by members of the Republican party?
Here is the best coverage I could find about the Todd Palin/Alaskan Indpendence Party scandal that I could find. Seems that since the AP stepped in it by saying Sarah Palin had been a member of the party, no major media outlet wants to report on it.
Well he is no longer a member (he was apparently from 1995 until 2002). What did he do as a member? How does he feel about his membership and what he did? Did he believe he "didn't do enough"? Does he "have no regrets"? Let's get him on the hot seat and see what he says.
|
|
I've been reading this thread and at least you all are arguing over things that are somewhat legit. Be glad you're not me, I live in the south and people around here still say out loud that they won't vote for Obama cause he's black, no matter what good he's done. Btw, thy didn't say black either. Makes me ashamed to live in the south.
Do you have any links?Obama's big mistake on this and continues to be, he keeps blowing it off and it keeps coming across as if he is hiding something.
Obama's 1st try: I hardly even know the guy, he lives down the street from me.
Obama's 2nd try: Yeah I know him and worked with him, but I didn't even know about his past.
Obama's 3rd try: I knew about his past, but I believed he was reformed.
Obama's 4th try: Other people working on things with him as well, including republicans, what does it matter how much I knew about him. Oh yeah, there wasn't a get know thing at his house (even though we all know there was).
Deny everything Barrack, hey it (mostly) worked for Clinton.
I'll work on it.
Here is one for number 3.was one of the people who was on this board. And he lives in the same neighborhood. Ultimately I learned that he [Ayers] was involved in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was 8 years old at the time. And I assumed he had been rehabilitated."
|
|
I've been reading this thread and at least you all are arguing over things that are somewhat legit. Be glad you're not me, I live in the south and people around here still say out loud that they won't vote for Obama cause he's black, no matter what good he's done. Btw, thy didn't say black either. Makes me ashamed to live in the south.
I understand where you are coming from. I did some church work in Alabama and Mississippi and one time I went with another guy from our church to talk to a man who had once been a high ranking member of our church, but had stopped coming. We invited him to come back to church and he said he would only come back if the church stopped letting blacks serve in the ministry. He used a different word than black also. It really made me mad because my grandmother was from Georgia and she always taught us kids that kind of language was never acceptable. Of course she had a few choice things to say about General Sherman, but we knew not to bring that up.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Obama's 3rd try: I knew about his past, but I believed he was reformed.
I'll work on it.
Here is one for number 3.was one of the people who was on this board. And he lives in the same neighborhood. Ultimately I learned that he [Ayers] was involved in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was 8 years old at the time. And I assumed he had been rehabilitated."
Makes sense to me. I think most people figured Ayers regretted his past until he wrote in 2001 (shortly before Obama left the board) that he was "Guilty as hell and free as a bird. God bless America" or something to the effect.
Seems Obama is being perfectly honest. Can we really tolerate that in a politician?
Here's one for number 2. (Obama's 2nd try: Yeah I know him and worked with him, but I didn't even know about his past.)
David Axelrod, chief strategist for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign
[quote=]JIM ACOSTA: Now a college professor in Chicago, Ayers and Obama served together several years on a nonprofit board. And in 1995 Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama when the young community organizer was making his first run for the State Senate. At this point looking back, should he not have done that?
DAVID AXELROD: Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history.
ACOSTA: The Democratic nominee’s chief strategist David Axelrod maintains Obama at that time had no idea about Ayers’ violent past.
Makes sense to me. I think most people figured Ayers regretted his past until he wrote in 2001 (shortly before Obama left the board) that he was "Guilty as hell and free as a bird. God bless America" or something to the effect.
Seems Obama is being perfectly honest. Can we really tolerate that in a politician?
The problem is he keeps squirming, see my list above of his various statements and campaign's positions (see my link in this post). Perfectly honest? That is debatable.
Also to point out that Ayers did an interview with Connie Chung (a portion is shown Here) in 1998, where he and his wife say that they don't regret what they had done and she even says she wished they had done more. Not 2001, 1998.
To further point out, that Obama didn't distance him from Ayers even after the 1998 interview. From Wikipedia:
up to 2002[/b], when Obama left his position on the board,[1] which Ayers chaired for two years.[10] Laura S. Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund, said the small board had a collegial "friendly but businesslike" atmosphere, and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants.[2] The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.[1] One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle.[11]
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wow. That's a pitiful attempt to scrape together some sort of proof. But, like I said before, as long as you're willing to apply such a narrow definition of telling the truth to all political candidates, that's fine by me. I guess you must be equally upset by Sarah Palin's changing story on the Bridge to Nowhere.
And, I bet you wouldn't take Todd Palin's answers at face value regarding the AIL either. You would still claim he wasn't truthful, and that the associations represent faulty judgment, no matter what he claimed about his involvement.
Yup. I'm certain of it.
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
Because people seem to have bitten on this incredibly strained and far-reaching argument, hook, line, and sinker, I'll just point to a similar argument against McCain:
John McCain personally donated to Contra terrorists
and
McCain linked to group in Iran-Contra affair
And to add to this "terrorist" crud the Republican party wants to shove down the American people's throats, consider this ridiculous claim that the name "Hussein" somehow insinuates an association with Saddam or terrorists:
The Prophet Mohammed's grandson was named Hussein, who himself became one of the revered figures in Islam. Throughout history probably millions of newborn Muslim males have been named Hussein, one of the most popular Muslim names after Mohammed.
And from Wikipedia:
"Husein, Hussein, Hossain, Hussain, Husain, Hosein, Husayn, Hussaini is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome" or "beautiful". It is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims, after Husayn ibn Ali, although the name is so common it is also given to persons of secular backgrounds."
So, what? Half the males in the Muslim world are related to each other now? And they are all terrorists? Rovian politics at its best.... :(
|
|
Neh. The amount of logic required to make the association, particularly with regards to the claim to which it is so obviously intended to make (Obama is a terrorist), is tortured and nonesensical. The idea that the point of discussing the association is to show that he changed his story/lied is b%#!!~~* cover - the goal is to keep flashing the words "Obama" and "terrorist" and hoping that's the connection that sticks. The dog and pony show about "was he truthful" is just a vehicle to introduce a concept that is completely without integrity or basis (Obama is a terrorist).
Personally, I never saw Obama's association with Bill Ayers as proof that Obama himself was a terrorist. From my point of view, however, his association with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and ACORN are all indicators that he is a typical politician, willing to work with anyone he thinks can get him more votes. That makes his candidate for change theme kind of lame in my book.
Palin also has lots of questionable stuff in her background, and is just as much of a typical politician as any of the other candidates. Frankly the AIP thing leaves me just as uncomfortable as any other secessionist group.
Ultimately, I'll decide my vote on the candidates positions on various issues, such as healthcare, unions/trade, education, and military spending.
|
|
Makes sense to me. I think most people figured Ayers regretted his past until he wrote in 2001 (shortly before Obama left the board) that he was "Guilty as hell and free as a bird. God bless America" or something to the effect.
Seems Obama is being perfectly honest. Can we really tolerate that in a politician?
Why would anybody assume he regretted his past? I honestly don't understand that statement. He gotsa lotsa money now, and gets to walk around scott free. What's he got to regret even, other than he missed a few targets?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Personally, I never saw Obama's association with Bill Ayers as proof that Obama himself was a terrorist. From my point of view, however, his association with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and ACORN are all indicators that he is a typical politician, willing to work with anyone he thinks can get him more votes. That makes his candidate for change theme kind of lame in my book.
That's a fair point.
Ultimately, I'll decide my vote on the candidates positions on various issues, such as healthcare, unions/trade, education, and military spending.
That's a great point.
And, for what it's worth, I would note that I believe that the Republican party is a great institution, with a lot of good ideas, noble virtues, and wonderful leaders. I remember Ryan Dancey wrote something about why he was a Republican that highlighted the very best of what the party stands for (individual liberty and personal responsibility stood out for me). For the longest time, I was indifferent to the outcome of this election because I thought John McCain exemplified everything I thought was good and right about the Republican party. I no longer think that way about him, and I regret that.
Ok Tarren Dei, I've given you links for #2 and #3 of those comments above.
For #1, I will say honestly it is a hyperbole, but it is based on his comments during the Democratic primaries.
Guy in my neighborhood
As for #4, well see one of my earlier post:
[quote=]JIM ACOSTA: Now a college professor in Chicago, Ayers and Obama served together several years on a nonprofit board. And in 1995 Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama when the young community organizer was making his first run for the State Senate. At this point looking back, should he not have done that?
DAVID AXELROD: Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history.
Notice, Mr. Axelrod didn't deny that Obama had attended the get together.
Now see the quote from the presidential debate that you posted.
[quote=]MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So -- and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room.
OBAMA: That's absolutely not true.
So there is #4.
|
|
What did the AIL blow up?What did the school board Obama was on blow up?
As an entity, less than the guy who hosted Obama's political coming out party blew up--that being zero, for all I know.
The same amount of stuff the AIL blew up.I do, however, wonder if Todd has ever been pround to be an American in his life before Sarah Palin ran for V.P.
|
|
I guess that makes them entirely innocent and peachy people after all. My bad. I guess I should've discounted whatever they did or said or advocated because they are associated with a republican candidate.
Actually, it does.
Well, innocent at least. For peachy, see further comments.At no point have they advocated any illegal acts.
At no point have they committed any illegal acts.
The founder of the party, who died before Todd Palin registered as a member, certainly said a number of things quite disparaging of the US, pretty moronic things as far as I am concerned, but he never said anything about blowing things up.
The platform of the party had in fact changed by the time Todd Palin joined, and it is currently affiliated with the Constitution Party. not that I consider that any particular endorsement of rational beliefs on their part, but nobody makes any effort to denounce any of the various libertarian parties for being stupid.
Plus, it's not really fair to associate Palin with them like it is to associate Obama with terrorism. I mean, come on, Palin only participated in the activities of a group that says inflammatory things about America (or something like that, I can't really be bothered enough to care, honestly), Obama on the other hand once was part of an organization which was focused around education with someone who once did something very bad in the distant past! Clearly, Obama is the worse person. How dare he join a school board where someone else with a disagreeable past served! That bastard!!!
Well actually, it is fair to associate Obama with the terrorist Bill Ayers, as it is fair to associate everyone else who accepted his political support, which is what Obama did, despite his lying about it during the debate the other night.
There is a very strong contrast between going to a picnic with a pack of whacked out secessionist libertarians and starting your political career with a meet and greet at the home of a terrorist whose only regret is that his organization did not kill and terrorize more people before their incompetence literally blew their plans up.This is why Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. With supporters willing to create such equivalencies in a desperate attempt to justify anything and everything he has done, no one should expect him to have any limits on his actions once he has power.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
. With supporters willing to create such equivalencies in a desperate attempt to justify anything and everything he has done, no one should expect him to have any limits on his actions once he has power.
Sweet, sweet irony. If only it could be appreciated. But, we all know the extreme right is without fault and perfect in every way.
The rest is just the usual baseless assertions and self-serving characterizations, and not worth refuting again.
Morons and fanatics.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As an aside, Wiki says the AIL has a membership of 13,000 some odd people; not to disparage Alaskans, on the contrary, but the idea of cultivating a fierce independence seems to go hand-in-hand with moving to.....Alaska.
I agree - the AIL stuff is stupid, and yet it is repeated with as much vitriol and conviction by the morons and fanatics on the far left as the Ayers crap is repeated by the morons and fanatics of the far right. Neither charge has a place in inteligent politcal conversations.
Edit: In any event, I'm done with this thread. I just hope all the hate and bigotry being stirred up by tactics like this doesn't take this country in a direction no one wants to see. The Timothy McVeigh's of this country will no doubt fully internalize the 'he's a terrorist' line and take it to its logical conclusion once the election is over. I hope losing an election is worth it.
Double Secret Edit: Okay, one more post for my number one fan, Sam Weiss, whose non-sequitor arguments and personal attacks I always love!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Ok Tarren Dei, I've given you links for #2 and #3 of those comments above.
Okay, I've read all four and I don't see the shift in position.
Obama's 1st try: I hardly even know the guy, he lives down the street from me.
-- He didn't say that. He said "This is a guy who lives in my neighbourhood in Chicago who is a professor of English who I know and who I have not received an official endorsement from and who I do not exchange ideas with on a regular basis."
Obama's 2nd try: Yeah I know him and worked with him, but I didn't even know about his past.
-- He didn't say that. His advisor said "Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history." He says he didn't know about the history of this guy in 1995.
Obama's 3rd try: I knew about his past, but I believed he was reformed.
-- He didn't say that. He said "Ultimately I learned that he [Ayers] was involved in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was 8 years old at the time. And I assumed he had been rehabilitated." He said he learned about his past. I guess he would have. It was during this time (between 1995 and 2001) that Ayers started reminding people of his past.
Obama's 4th try: Other people working on things with him as well, including republicans, what does it matter how much I knew about him. Oh yeah, there wasn't a get know thing at his house (even though we all know there was).
-- He didn't say that. Asked if he launched his political campaign (which one? launched?) in Ayers' living room he said "That's absolutely not true." He hasn't denied that he met people in Ayers' house. He said that he didn't launch his campaign there.
I don't think I'm being finicky with words here. Obama has said that Ayers was involved in reprehensible acts; he has condemned those acts; he has said he does not and will not be taking advice from Ayers while in the White House. That's clear enough.
|
|
Sweet, sweet irony. If only it could be appreciated. But, we all know the extreme right is without fault and perfect in every way.
For it to be ironic, there would have to be some example of such extreme equivocation on my part, as well as evidence of my being part of the extreme right. As there is none of either, you are as wrong about this as you are about Obama's associations not being relevant.
The rest is just the usual baseless assertions and self-serving characterizations, and not worth refuting again.
You mean the usual bunch of simple you are unable rebut so you resort to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to justify yourself.
That would mean the next bit should be:Morons and fanatics.
And there we have it.
Again, that is how I expect Obama to relate to the least criticism and presenting of facts if elected.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Well actually, it is fair to associate Obama with the terrorist Bill Ayers, as it is fair to associate everyone else who accepted his political support, which is what Obama did, despite his lying about it during the debate the other night.There is a very strong contrast between going to a picnic with a pack of whacked out secessionist libertarians and starting your political career with a meet and greet at the home of a terrorist...
Was Ayers convicted of terrorism? Former terrorist at best.
Obama said he didn't launch his political campaign there. Others have claimed Obama started his campaign in their living room, not Ayers' living room.
And, frankly, I'm not sure I see the strong contrast. Maybe I'm just looking at it in Canadian terms where the whacked out separatists are also the former terrorists.
Our titular head of state is married to a man who once supported separatists and she was once recorded supporting Quebec liberation herself. She's working out just fine. So, either way you guys go, our experience indicates spouses of supporters of separatists and former acquaintances of radical groups can still turn out okay in the end.
Okay, I've read all four and I don't see the shift in position.
Shifting position? Maybe, maybe not, but definitely trying hard not to be forthcoming. The story keeps changing. Maybe that is due to further clarification or maybe its due to word games. But the point is, it hurts his credibility. Be honest right off the bat, don't try to blow off these things.
Obama's 1st try: I hardly even know the guy, he lives down the street from me.-- He didn't say that. He said "This is a guy who lives in my neighbourhood in Chicago who is a professor of English who I know and who I have not received an official endorsement from and who I do not exchange ideas with on a regular basis."
Yeah, I know. I never claimed I was giving direct quotes originally. And I also admited above that it was a hyperbole.
Obama's 2nd try: Yeah I know him and worked with him, but I didn't even know about his past.-- He didn't say that. His advisor said "Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history." He says he didn't know about the history of this guy in 1995.
Right, again, wasn't making direct quotations originally. He didn't know, right, ok. Or maybe he did? Let's assume he didn't know originally. When did he?
[Obama's 3rd try: I knew about his past, but I believed he was reformed.-- He didn't say that. He said "Ultimately I learned that he [Ayers] was involved in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was 8 years old at the time. And I assumed he had been rehabilitated." He said he learned about his past. I guess he would have. It was during this time (between 1995 and 2001) that Ayers started reminding people of his past.
Really dude, wasn't making direct quotations again. Seriously. So he learned about his past. When between the time he learned about Ayers' past and the time he learned Ayers wasn't repentent about it did he believe Ayres was rehabilitated? You can't say that Obama didn't learn about his past until Ayers started making a deal about not being repentent about it and then say, "Oh I thought he was rehabilitated". Well I guess you could say that and the Wild-Barry kool-aid drinkers could buy it but what rational person would?
Obama's 4th try: Other people working on things with him as well, including republicans, what does it matter how much I knew about him. Oh yeah, there wasn't a get know thing at his house (even though we all know there was).-- He didn't say that. Asked if he launched his political campaign (which one? launched?) in Ayers' living room he said "That's absolutely not true." He hasn't denied that he met people in Ayers' house. He said that he didn't launch his campaign there.
Yeah, yeah, not a direct quote, again. That is splitting the hair a bit finely. That was for Obama's first public office position, and according to some reports the person who was going to try to move on to the national stage supposably was endorsing Obama there. Whether that was the "official" launch or not, it was pretty damn close.
I don't think I'm being finicky with words here. Obama has said that Ayers was involved in reprehensible acts; he has condemned those acts; he has said he does not and will not be taking advice from Ayers while in the White House. That's clear enough.
...
I think you are. Besides I wasn't trying, again, to present direct quotations again, but general ideas of his campaigns arguments. It changes, whether for clarification purposes or he keeps getting boxed into a tighter corner or whatever, its changing. Now he says that people with Ayers type of mentality is not his, as is Rev. Wright, and who knows who else, but at this point how credible is his comment on this? To some perfect, to others non-existant, to still others questionable, to others still conditional.
And, frankly, I'm not sure I see the strong contrast. Maybe I'm just looking at it in Canadian terms where the whacked out separatists are also the former terrorists.
Wow, remind me not to visit Quebec.
|
|
As an aside, Wiki says the AIL has a membership of 13,000 some odd people; not to disparage Alaskans, on the contrary, but the idea of cultivating a fierce independence seems to go hand-in-hand with moving to.....Alaska.I agree - the AIL stuff is stupid, and yet it is repeated with as much vitriol and conviction by the morons and fanatics on the far left as the Ayers crap is repeated by the morons and fanatics of the far right. Neither charge has a place in inteligent politcal conversations.
Edit: In any event, I'm done with this thread. I just hope all the hate and bigotry being stirred up by tactics like this doesn't take this country in a direction no one wants to see. The Timothy McVeigh's of this country will no doubt fully internalize the 'he's a terrorist' line and take it to its logical conclusion once the election is over. I hope losing an election is worth it.
I'm in Texas. You're in California. Either way, we're both pissing in a hurricane, so hell with it.
[total threadjack] Hey Heathy, saw a bunch of stuff about coyote trouble in Mesquite on the news a couple of days ago.
And, frankly, I'm not sure I see the strong contrast. Maybe I'm just looking at it in Canadian terms where the whacked out separatists are also the former terrorists.Wow, remind me not to visit Quebec.
You should totally come to Quebec! We have great beer, great food and fabulous gaming!
Plus, there are no FLQuistes (as we say) of any political or social significance kicking around. Sure, there's a small lunatic fringe of separatists, but they wave banners, bang drums and spraypaint signs - nothing to get riled up about. Even the worst of the separatists are all talk...which is a good thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I think you are. Besides I wasn't trying, again, to present direct quotations again, but general ideas of his campaigns arguments. It changes, whether for clarification purposes or he keeps getting boxed into a tighter corner or whatever, its changing. Now he says that people with Ayers type of mentality is not his, as is Rev. Wright, and who knows who else, but at this point how credible is his comment on this? To some perfect, to others non-existant, to still others questionable, to others still conditional.
I don't think I'm being finicky with words here. Obama has said that Ayers was involved in reprehensible acts; he has condemned those acts; he has said he does not and will not be taking advice from Ayers while in the White House. That's clear enough.
I don't see the change. From the first quote you've cited to the last he has said that he knows the guy but that Ayers is not involved in his campaign. He has said that he served on a charity board with the guy. He has said that Ayers' actions are reprehensible. Was there an earlier denial you were going to cite?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
And, frankly, I'm not sure I see the strong contrast. Maybe I'm just looking at it in Canadian terms where the whacked out separatists are also the former terrorists.Wow, remind me not to visit Quebec.You should totally come to Quebec! We have great beer, great food and fabulous gaming!
Plus, there are no FLQuistes (as we say) of any political or social significance kicking around. Sure, there's a small lunatic fringe of separatists, but they wave banners, bang drums and spraypaint signs - nothing to get riled up about. Even the worst of the separatists are all talk...which is a good thing.
I should have put "whacked out" in quotes as I was quoting someone else's words. I don't mean to imply that all those who support Quebec independence are 'whacked out'.
I don't see the change. From the first quote you've cited to the last he has said that he knows the guy but that Ayers is not involved in his campaign. He has said that he served on a charity board with the guy. He has said that Ayers' actions are reprehensible. Was there an earlier denial you were going to cite?
Obama's campaign tactic #2: Obama didn't know about Ayers past.
Obama's campaign tactic #3: Obama thought Ayers was rehabilitated.
That is a change. #2 give the impression that Obama was not aware of Ayers' history until only recently, not true. #3 give the impression that he was aware of Ayers history for awhile but believed he was rehabilitated.
Now maybe the whole Ayers thing doesn't really mean jack-squat in the big picture, but the way Obama's campaign has approached the issue has hurt Obama's credibility. Without credibility anything he says becomes suspect.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
His usual toxic brew.
Let's see if I can summon a response worth giving that summarizes the response this musters:
FAIL.
Thanks Sam! Have fun with the vitriol and anger, I hope they keep you warm and happy. I promise, I'll happily engage in a more complete discussion with you once you are capable! In the meantime, I have better things to do than try and nail jello to a wall.
Best wishes,
Sebastian
Don't forget to call me a troll when you get in the last word and spout out a few more right wing talking points while claiming your not a right-winger! Future archeologists studying the internet will want proof of your genius. Don't let them down!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I don't see the change. From the first quote you've cited to the last he has said that he knows the guy but that Ayers is not involved in his campaign. He has said that he served on a charity board with the guy. He has said that Ayers' actions are reprehensible. Was there an earlier denial you were going to cite?Obama's campaign tactic #2: Obama didn't know about Ayers past.
Obama's campaign tactic #3: Obama thought Ayers was rehabilitated.
That is a change. #2 give the impression that Obama was not aware of Ayers' history until only recently, not true. #3 give the impression that he was aware of Ayers history for awhile but believed he was rehabilitated.
Now maybe the whole Ayers thing doesn't really mean jack-squat in the big picture, but the way Obama's campaign has approached the issue has hurt Obama's credibility. Without credibility anything he says becomes suspect.
You've really got to start using quotes. He said that at one point in the past he didn't know about Ayers' past (#2) and that ultimately he became aware of it (#3). No change.
At some point in my past, I wasn't aware that chocolate tasted great but ultimately I became aware of it.