PDA

View Full Version : The Ayers thread


jrrtoken
12-11-2008, 05:51 PM
Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.I'd love to see the proof for your opinion, especially when it's based on nothing. Everything that I've seen implies that Obama has had little to do with Blagojevich, even Blagojevich himself said that Obama wouldn't cooperate with anything of the sort in the wiretaps.

Oh yes, there's something else that is wrong with your statement. Blagojevich is the governor of Illinois. If you don't remember, Chicago is a city in Illinois.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8366/illinoischiqc0.th.gif (http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=illinoischiqc0.gif)

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7163/illinoisillvu6.th.gif (http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=illinoisillvu6.gif)

See?

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 10:18 PM
Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.
We've proven you wrong on every one of those points many times before. If you're not going to come up with some new "evidence" that isn't clearly biased or simply false, I implore you to at least grow more creative in your attempts to smear the President-elect.

Jae Onasi
12-11-2008, 11:06 PM
Actually, Ayers came out after the election and said in an interview that he was indeed friends with Obama. Obama did also work for ACORN, but there is no link between his work and the voter registration fraud that has been a problem in this organization. Obama buying a house via a sweet deal with Rezko is also a matter of record, and Rezko had donated to Obama's campaign, but Obama donated all the Rezko funds to charity and disassociated himself from Rezko when he found out about Rezko's indictment. I'm sure if Gov. Rod donated anything to Obama's campaign, those funds will likewise be donated to charity. I'm not sure how much dealings Rod had with Obama, to be honest. I'm sure they had some interaction since Obama was a state senator and then IL senator, but it doesn't sound like Rod wanted anything to do with anyone who wasn't going to grease his wheels.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 11:19 PM
Sorry Jae, but Obama has condemned Ayers' past actions, and does not have a personal relationship with Bill Ayers.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/178228
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/22/parsing-the-ayers-allegation.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/06/politics/main4503380.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/Story?id=5667094&page=1
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/11/mr-ayerss-neighborhood.html?yrail

That last one contains the following quote:
“I think my relationship with Obama was probably like that of thousands of others in Chicago and, like millions and millions of others, I wished I knew him better.”

Barack Obama does not have, nor has he ever had, any form of personal relationship with Bill Ayers. Both Obama and Ayers have stated as much.

GarfieldJL
12-11-2008, 11:20 PM
Actually, Ayers came out after the election and said in an interview that he was indeed friends with Obama.

Something, Sean Hannity had been saying for months. Oh and there is some more stuff that has come out concerning the media and Bill Ayers as an aside.
Newsbusters story concerning Chris Matthews' interview with Bill Ayers. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/12/10/matthews-ayers-i-agitate-my-way-you-agitate-your-way)

Obama did also work for ACORN, but there is no link between his work and the voter registration fraud that has been a problem in this organization.

Actually he was running their Project Vote, so voter fraud would have been happening under his watch. He also funnelled tons of money to ACORN.


Obama buying a house via a sweet deal with Rezko is also a matter of record, and Rezko had donated to Obama's campaign, but Obama donated all the Rezko funds to charity and disassociated himself from Rezko when he found out about Rezko's indictment.

Also turns out that the Real-estate agent involved is the wife of the Illinois Governor that is currently under inditement. Really, he only donated those funds to charity cause he got caught, seriously if Obama didn't know what was going on, then he makes Bush look like a genius.


I'm sure if Gov. Rod donated anything to Obama's campaign, those funds will likewise be donated to charity. I'm not sure how much dealings Rod had with Obama, to be honest. I'm sure they had some interaction since Obama was a state senator and then IL senator, but it doesn't sound like Rod wanted anything to do with anyone who wasn't going to grease his wheels.

Donating funds to charity? Seriously, the donating is a moot point because it was already used to buy the Presidency. Obama's campaign spent more money than Bush and Kerry did combined.

Also some of the conservative blogs are now out and out accusing certain media outlets of deliberately trying to cover up news stories that they had printed, because they show Obama to be lieing.
KHQA Renounces its Nov 5th Story Reported Obama Blago Meeting Fact Nov 8th (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/12/10/khqa-renounces-its-nov-5-story-reported-obama-blago-meeting-fact-nov-8)

Uh, The Doctor, while I applaud you taking the time to do research, there are some pretty serious accusations concerning the credibility of pretty much all of the news sites you are quoting. There is a reason why the New York Times is in danger of going bankrupt.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 11:34 PM
Uh, The Doctor, while I applaud you taking the time to do research, there are some pretty serious accusations concerning the credibility of pretty much all of the news sites you are quoting. There is a reason why the New York Times is in danger of going bankrupt.

That's also been discussed countless times - if you insist that your Republican bloggers are reliable sources, than I will continue to reference these news sources despite your insistence of "serious accusations concerning their credibility".

GarfieldJL
12-11-2008, 11:39 PM
That's also been discussed countless times - if you insist that your Republican bloggers are reliable sources, than I will continue to reference these news sources despite your insistence of "serious accusations concerning their credibility".

They are reliable when they provide sources (such as tapes), links to the News Media's own websites, etc. If they manage to back up what they state, then I would consider them to be credible. Whereas, a News Agency claiming an anonymous source told them such and such and the story turns out to be bogus isn't remotely reliable.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 11:42 PM
Good to know that named campaign aids and Ayers himself are now considered anonymous sources. :dozey:

EnderWiggin
12-11-2008, 11:43 PM
Actually he was running their Project Vote, so voter fraud would have been happening under his watch.


Neither Bill O nor Sean Hannity think this, I know because I watch FOXNews.

You are making unsubstantiated claims that are blatantly false just to stir up trouble.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-11-2008, 11:44 PM
Good to know that named campaign aids and Ayers himself are now considered anonymous sources. :dozey:

You mean to tell me that Bill Ayers has any credibility whatsoever? I wasn't born yesterday.

Neither Bill O nor Sean Hannity think this, I know because I watch FOXNews.

You are making unsubstantiated claims that are blatantly false just to stir up trouble.

_EW_

I'm not making any unsubstianciated claims, I hope the articles are still online when I actually have time to find them again, I don't make idle accusations.

And by the way Sean did point this stuff out, he did it repeatedly, so you apparently weren't watching Hannity & Colmes those days.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 11:46 PM
When what he says is confirmed from multiple sources, I'm inclined to believe him. Especially since the questionable acts of his past occurred about 40 years ago.

@ E_W: It's especially aggravating when it's the same blatantly false claims over and over again, isn't it?

Adavardes
12-11-2008, 11:57 PM
Sorry, but that's the definition of what you're doing.

_EW_

Don't forget ignoring sources and proof just as valid as this newsbuster blog, or Fox News, if not moreso, simply because it contradicts what he's saying. I've been reading your debates for a while now, Garfield, and, I mean, your claims against Obama are both clearly and overwhelmingly proven to be falsified time and time again, and instead of learning anything from this, you pretend it's completely invalid for vaguely explained reasons and plow on.

To keep this on topic, I think Doc did everything I ever could to disprove Obama's ties to Ayers, ACORN, or any other disreputable person and/or group of people used in the smear campaigns against him. It's getting so tired and pointless, it's borderline humiliating to those still trying to perpetuate it. It's in my personal experience that a losing party's rhetoric is always desperate and irrational after a loss like this, but it just needs to stop. Obama is the next president of the United States. Let him prove himself with time and effort before attempting to judge him any further, especially when such judging is being done unfairly with falsified information.

And, by the way, Ayers does deserve credibility. He's an English professor at Chicago University and a politically active citizen that happens to be well thought of amongst those that actually know him. In all reality, he was a teenager in the 60s who took his hair-brained and probably drug-induced ideologies against the government to an extreme, something that was a mistake, but still is a mistake that happened 40 years ago, when many of the people his age were doing stupid things as well. The conservatives have taken that past and blown it way, WAY out of proportion with calling him a terrorist.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 01:56 PM
@ The Doctor:
Transcript of the Good morning American (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/bill_ayers_on_abcs_good_mornin.html) interview. However Ayers wants to characterize it and dodge it with careful language, he was friends with Obama, and denying that is unwise. The more important question is how much influence Ayers' ideas on activism and education have on Obama policies. I'm going to assume Ayers isn't giving Obama tips on how to bomb the Pentagon, however.

This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, simply because he knows a man that lives in his neighborhood (a man I still very much doubt he knew as well as many claim), and that man happened to do something somewhat considered domestic terrorism in a questionable and more than likely drug-induced state of mind forty years ago? How does that at all make sense?

Let's pretend that Obama is friends with Ayers, even though I haven't seen any solid proof to support such a claim. People are much less influenced by their acquaintences than is clearly thought in this debate. It's a little something called individuality. Just because you're friends with someone does not mean that you share their ideas, or that they somehow hold sway over the way you think. Maybe those of you arguing this point are just unfamiliar with a lack of conformism, or just have no minds of your own. I don't know, but Ayers, ACORN, and whoever else you keep throwing around are not Obama.

End. of. story.

The Doctor
12-16-2008, 02:19 PM
@ The Doctor:
Transcript of the Good morning American (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/bill_ayers_on_abcs_good_mornin.html) interview. However Ayers wants to characterize it and dodge it with careful language, he was friends with Obama, and denying that is unwise. The more important question is how much influence Ayers' ideas on activism and education have on Obama policies. I'm going to assume Ayers isn't giving Obama tips on how to bomb the Pentagon, however.

On the contrary, Jae, I think it's the height of ignorance to assume that simply because they've interacted, they're suddenly friends. They're not friends any more than I am with the girl up the street who I sat next to in Grade 9 French class, or the guy around the corner who I sat next to in Jazz band for 3 years. Just because I know them, and have shared idle chat with them, doesn't mean they have any influence whatsoever on what I believe, or how I stand on any issue.

Had Obama and Ayers pursued a relationship beyond a working environment, I might be more inclined to believe that they were true "friends". But judging from what I've seen, there is no evidence to support the claim that they shared any kind of relationship beyond a business acquaintanceship. There are literally thousands of people who Obama has had the same kind of relationship with, and none of them have had their pasts and relationships with Barack exaggerated by the wrong- right-wing.

Besides, just like Addy said: even if they are friends (which they're not, fyi), that in no way means that Obama approves of Ayers' past actions. He's even said as much. He's condemned Ayers' past actions, and has shown no evidence that could lead anyone but the most desperate of self-deluded conservative smear artists to believe that he has any sort of terrorist agenda or ideals.

This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 04:12 PM
This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, simply because he knows a man that lives in his neighborhood (a man I still very much doubt he knew as well as many claim), and that man happened to do something somewhat considered domestic terrorism in a questionable and more than likely drug-induced state of mind forty years ago? How does that at all make sense?

Don't give me that media song and dance, Obama started his State Senate campaign in Bill Ayer's house for goodness sakes, he worked for Bill Ayers, and Bill Ayer's wife along with Ayers introduced Obama to his wife. This is a heck of a lot more than just some guy in his neighborhood.


Let's pretend that Obama is friends with Ayers, even though I haven't seen any solid proof to support such a claim.

Try the fact that Obama funnelled money to Ayers' projects to indoctrinate children into left-wing radicalism.


People are much less influenced by their acquaintences than is clearly thought in this debate. It's a little something called individuality. Just because you're friends with someone does not mean that you share their ideas, or that they somehow hold sway over the way you think. Maybe those of you arguing this point are just unfamiliar with a lack of conformism, or just have no minds of your own. I don't know, but Ayers, ACORN, and whoever else you keep throwing around are not Obama.


How many friends does it take before it becomes a pattern? How many interconnecting associations does it take before its more than coincidence? This isn't a Republican hit job like the mainstream media would like people to believe. I really find your comments that conservatives don't know what they're talking about to be highly insulting. If he just was associated with Ayers, it would raise a few eyebrows but it wouldn't be that big of a deal, fact is he isn't just associated with Ayers.

Saul Allinsky, Bill Ayers, ACORN, Ahenberg Project. That's 4 bad associations that begin with the letter 'A' that I can name off the top of my head. Everyone may have one or two bad associations, but not so many that there are 4 that begin with the letter 'A'.

This isn't including: Rezko, the Governor of Illinois, the Governor's wife, Rev. Wright, Rev. Moss, Pastor Pfleger, etc.

We're not talking one or two bad associations here, we're talking about enough to fill at least a large school bus.
Catholic Priest bashing Hillary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eotAHXQ0-Ck)


End. of. story.

On the contrary, assuming I have time to sit down and seriously talk about this, I'm just getting warmed up.

This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.

Last I checked Hippies didn't bomb police stations, try to kill a Judge and his family (which included young children), not to mention the guy is only sorry that he didn't set more bombs and didn't think he was violent enough.

I'm not going into the bad associations that are family, because he doesn't have a choice in that regard, he chose to associate with an unrepentant terrorist.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 04:17 PM
This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, simply because he knows a man that lives in his neighborhood (a man I still very much doubt he knew as well as many claim), and that man happened to do something somewhat considered domestic terrorism in a questionable and more than likely drug-induced state of mind forty years ago? How does that at all make sense?

Let's pretend that Obama is friends with Ayers, even though I haven't seen any solid proof to support such a claim. People are much less influenced by their acquaintences than is clearly thought in this debate. It's a little something called individuality. Just because you're friends with someone does not mean that you share their ideas, or that they somehow hold sway over the way you think. Maybe those of you arguing this point are just unfamiliar with a lack of conformism, or just have no minds of your own. I don't know, but Ayers, ACORN, and whoever else you keep throwing around are not Obama.

End. of. story.Quoting all of this for truth and emphasis and adding the part where I ask all the Ayers conspiracy supporters to ask themselves how many of them vet every single person they associate with on the off chance that it might hurt their campaign...should they decide to run for President a decade or more from now. Next time you go to work, look around and ask yourself how much you really know about those around you. Dirty secrets? Past associations? If the answer is "not much" then it would seem that you're holding Obama to some bizarre standard that it hasn't even occurred to you to hold yourself to.

Oh, and if you decide to begin holding yourself to that standard, ask yourself how much info your co-workers are going to give you just because you ask.

"Hey, Bob, I know this might sound a little strange, but I was just kinda wondering if you've ever been convicted of a felony, practice any kind of sexual deviation, or have associated with any domestic terrorist organizations in the past"

"Wow! You must be new around here. I thought they covered my 7 DUIs, chicken fetish, and participation in the Oklahoma City bombing in new hire orientation. Wait till you get a load of the holiday party. *Whispers* The boss drags out his pron collection and tells the story about the first time he ever tried on women's underwear. It's a classic!".

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 04:25 PM
Quoting all of this for truth and emphasis and adding the part where I ask all the Ayers conspiracy supporters to ask themselves how many of them vet every single person they associate with on the off chance that it might hurt their campaign...should they decide to run for President a decade or more from now. Next time you go to work, look around and ask yourself how much you really know about those around you. Dirty secrets? Past associations? If the answer is "not much" then it would seem that you're holding Obama to some bizarre standard that it hasn't even occurred to you to hold yourself to.

Have you even read what people have posted?

1 or 2 associations, okay, 3 or 4 cause for concern, at least 10-20 and they interconnect is downright scary. And Obama ranks in the least 10-20.


Oh, and if you decide to begin holding yourself to that standard, ask yourself how much info your co-workers are going to give you just because you ask.

Last I checked none of my co-workers bombed the Pentagon, the US capital building, and New York City Police Headquarters.


"Hey, Bob, I know this might sound a little strange, but I was just kinda wondering if you've ever been convicted of a felony, practice any kind of sexual deviation, or have associated with any domestic terrorist organizations in the past"

Again we have an unrepentent terrorist that brags about what he did.


"Wow! You must be new around here. I thought they covered my 7 DUIs, chicken fetishes, and participation in the Oklahoma City bombing in new hire orientation. Wait till you get a load of the holiday party. *Whispers* The boss drags out his pron collection and tells the story about the first time he ever tried on women's underwear. It's a classic!".

I don't know where you're working at, the worst thing a co-worker has done is get a DUI, least where I work at. Seriously, DUI's, Chicken whatever, and the boss having a collection of magazines, doesn't concern me. It's the one that is a terrorist that concerns me.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 04:41 PM
Have you even read what people have posted?

1 or 2 associations, okay, 3 or 4 cause for concern, at least 10-20 and they interconnect is downright scary. And Obama ranks in the least 10-20.

You mean 10-20 falsified relationships with individuals he may or may not know. Truth is, you have no real evidence to support these claims, except perhaps for the sources you constantly use, which, by the way, are so steeped in conservative bias that their "truth" is little more than invented nonsense. You tell me to give up that media song and dance, how about you step out from behind your wall of factual neglect and things that Fox News tells you and take a look at some real facts. That you're searching for significant connections that don't exist beyond scenarios that Doctor and Achilles have outlined, or just simply aren't real, to stir up an unfounded distrust in the man that is going to lead you for the next four years, whether you like it or not. Ayers is a respectable man who has not commited a major felony since his actions, which were probably not his best moments, forty years ago. He is not an unrepentant terrorist, and I would gladly take his "left-wing radicalism" before I listen to anymore of your right-wing radicalism based solely on ignorance and the blind accusations of terrorism that have no substance whatsoever.

By the way, I'm pretty sure I've been introduced to a lot of people in my neighborhood, and met a lot of individuals at parties and around my place of employ that I don't know from Adam. There are people I have been around in school and in get-togethers by proxy of friends alone that I could tell you nothing about, which includes their religious preferences, their political polarity, and their opinions on the elections. So, for some reason, you seem to think that just because Obama is going to be the new president of the United States, you can be totally irrational about similar connections he has in his life, and claim they are something more?

Oh, and I'd love to hear what you have to say about EnderWiggin calling you out on outright lying about what O'Reilly and Hannity have said on this issue earlier, as you seem to have pulled a Palin and shifted right around that.

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 04:42 PM
Alright, I won't kick you, but I am getting very sick of conservatives trying to label Obama a terrorist, a liar, or some kind of communist nut job. And your original post seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to call him corrupt. I apologise if this wasn't the case.

Uh last I checked Conservatives labeled him as being friends with terrorists (the Obama is a terrorist argument doesn't hold water, but his lack of good judgement is easily proven), a liar (which is proven since he's a typical politican from Chicago), and he is associated with enough communist nuts to give a fair argument that he is also a communist nut job.

And despite what the DoJ has said thus far, it's entirely possible Obama will be implicated in all of this as well. Illinois is the most corrupt state in the United States and Obama has the same associations as this Illinois Governor.

Regardless, the Governor is associated with Obama.

jonathan7
12-16-2008, 04:43 PM
I'm reposting this as I never got an answer, and to me this is the crux of the problem, if Obama is guilty of any crime he should tried in a court of law; under innocent until proven guilty proviso (i.e. how the justice system should work). This at least to me seems to be nothing but trial by media.

Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.

Yup that's still my opinion :xp:, and I would argue a lot of the above as to what Obama is guilty of is down to opinion, I'll agree its fact when he's tried in a court of law (innocent until proven guilty etc).

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 04:43 PM
Have you even read what people have posted?

1 or 2 associations, okay, 3 or 4 cause for concern, at least 10-20 and they interconnect is downright scary. And Obama ranks in the least 10-20. So should I assume that you typically ask your associates if they have previously engaged in terrorist activities during your 9th or 10th interaction with them?

Last I checked none of my co-workers bombed the Pentagon, the US capital building, and New York City Police Headquarters.And when was the last time you checked? Please be specific with your response. I want to know at exactly what point you ask your associates if they've ever bombed, or attempted to bomb, any public building.

Again we have an unrepentent terrorist that brags about what he did.One good non-sequitur deserves another: So you would rather that we elected the unrepentant terrorist that bragged what he did? Y'know, the Navy pilot that dropped bombs on Vietnamese villages. No civilian casualties there, eh?

I don't know where you're working at, the worst thing a co-worker has done is get a DUI, least where I work at.How do you know? Because you've asked or because you're assuming?

Seriously, DUI's, Chicken whatever, and the boss having a collection of magazines, doesn't concern me. It's the one that is a terrorist that concerns me.How do you know that none of your coworkers are terrorists? Because you've asked or because you're assuming?

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 04:53 PM
So should I assume that you typically ask your associates if they have previously engaged in terrorist activities during your 9th or 10th interaction with them?

Ayers, is a matter of public record and has a tendency to brag about it.


And when was the last time you checked? Please be specific with your response. I want to know at exactly what point you ask your associates if they've ever bombed, or attempted to bomb, any public building.

Considering it's against company policy to hire someone like that, I don't have to.


One good non-sequitur deserves another: So you would rather that we elected the unrepentant terrorist that bragged what he did? Y'know, the Navy pilot that dropped bombs on Vietnamese villages. No civilian casualties there, eh?

That was uncalled for, putting it mildly.



How do you know that none of your coworkers are terrorists? Because you've asked or because you're assuming?

Because my work would have fired them for either lieing on their job application, or upon their conviction.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 05:07 PM
Oh, and I'd love to hear what you have to say about EnderWiggin calling you out on outright lying about what O'Reilly and Hannity have said on this issue earlier, as you seem to have pulled a Palin and shifted right around that.

I want an answer to this question, otherwise, I'm just going to hold every single argument you make from this point forward in complete falsity. I'm tired of you jumping around this blatant accusation to your word, and in my opinion, this is completely relevant to any further accusations against Obama made by you.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 05:09 PM
Ayers, is a matter of public record and has a tendency to brag about it.Okay. Do you work with any people that have been associated with domestic terrorists as a matter of public record? When you respond, please consider whether or not you are guessing.

Considering it's against company policy to hire someone like that, I don't have to.This isn't an answer.

All companies ask their employees if they are convicted felons when they hire someone. Just because your HR department knows that you're working with a felon doesn't mean that you do. So I'll ask again: How do you know?

That was uncalled for, putting it mildly. It's a perfectly valid question. It seems you'd perfer the unrepentant terrorist over the person that "had associations" with an unrepentant terrorist. I can't follow how that logic works.

Because my work would have fired them for either lieing on their job application, or upon their conviction.But you just said a few posts ago that you worked with someone with a DUI. You appear to be confused re: your companies policies. Regardless, you still haven't answered the question.

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 05:15 PM
Okay. Do you work with any people that have been associated with domestic terrorists as a matter of public record? When you respond, please consider whether or not you are guessing.

I'm not guessing, cause I know dang well the answer is no.


All companies ask their employees if they are convicted felons when they hire someone. Just because your HR department knows that you're working with a felon doesn't mean that you do. So I'll ask again: How do you know?

Because the store I work at is relatively small, its a campus bookstore and some lunatic like that could be a potential danger for students.

It's a perfectly valid question. It seems you'd perfer the unrepentant terrorist over the person that "had associations" with an unrepentant terrorist. I can't follow how that logic works.

I don't appreciate you calling people that put their lives on the line for this country to be terrorists.


But you just said a few posts ago that you worked with someone with a DUI. You appear to be confused re: your companies policies. Regardless, you still haven't answered the question.

Considering I work at a store that is on a college campus, DUI's aren't all that uncommon for college students, it's not like we have to worry about the person flying off the handle and trying to kill someone.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 05:27 PM
I'm not guessing, cause I know dang well the answer is no. Because you've asked them, because you've asked them as part of a vetting process, or...?

You've yet to tell me at what point you interview/vet your associates. Thus far you've only provided me with the reason why you feel safe, not the reason you are safe (big difference).

Because the store I work at is relatively small, its a campus bookstore and some lunatic like that could be a potential danger for students. That's great. Doesn't answer the question though. I'll ask a third time: How do you know?

If you don't provide a specific response in your next reply, I'll have no other choice than to assume that you don't know and therefore have no room to continue commenting on this topic without further exposing your hypocrisy. Deal?

I don't appreciate you calling people that put their lives on the line for this country to be terrorists.Shall we apply this same standard to suicide bombers? Or are you hoping to invoke special pleading for your specific ideology?

Considering I work at a store that is on a college campus, DUI's aren't all that uncommon for college students, it's not like we have to worry about the person flying off the handle and trying to kill someone.This doesn't answer the question. If you don't know simply say so. I, for one, will appreciate the honesty.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 05:33 PM
I don't appreciate you calling people that put their lives on the line for this country to be terrorists.

So, let me get this straight. When your preferred candidate's character is called into question, you act as if it's an outright unfair attack to his person that deserves only offense, yet when you call Obama's character into question, you act as if it's a perfectly valid basis for argument, even when you have yet to actually prove any of it with solid facts.

Hm.

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 05:40 PM
Because you've asked them, because you've asked them as part of a vetting process, or...?

Because most of them are too young to have participated in something like that for starters...


You've yet to tell me at what point you interview/vet your associates. Thus far you've only provided me with the reason why you feel safe, not the reason you are safe (big difference).
But I'm not the employer.


That's great. Doesn't answer the question though. I'll ask a third time: How do you know?

Well considering the fact that in most cases they wouldn't have been born at the time of the Weather Underground, its kinda impossible for them to have participated in bombing the Pentagon.


If you don't provide a specific response in your next reply, I'll have no other choice than to assume that you don't know and therefore have no room to continue commenting on this topic without further exposing your hypocrisy. Deal?

Well considering they wouldn't have been born yet in most cases, and the fact none of my coworkers, nor has my boss ever bragged about something like that, kinda makes it highly unlikely. Whereas, Bill Ayers has bragged about what he did, wrote books on it, etc.

You quite frankly aren't exposing anything but your own smear campaign.


Shall we apply this same standard to suicide bombers? Or are you hoping to invoke special pleading for your specific ideology?

Wouldn't fly because he was dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air trying to hit railway lines and bridges. He wasn't targetting civilians, a suicide bomber just goes in and tries to kill anyone they can. You are out of line and your smear campaign of the members of the US Military is out of line.


This doesn't answer the question. If you don't know simply say so. I, for one, will appreciate the honesty.

Looks to me, you're out to conduct a smear campaign of myself and anyone else that criticizes Obama.

So, let me get this straight. When your preferred candidate's character is called into question, you act as if it's an outright unfair attack to his person that deserves only offense, yet when you call Obama's character into question, you act as if it's a perfectly valid basis for argument, even when you have yet to actually prove any of it with solid facts.

No, McCain flying a plane in a war zone trying to hit targets from several thousand feet off the ground, the intended targets were military in nature not civilian. Ayers and co. deliberately tried to kill a Judge's family (which included small children), see the difference?

Connection to Obama:
http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/09/08annenberg.h28.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/09/08annenberg.h28.html&levelId=2100
http://alysonlove.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-dont-know-if-this-will-break-through.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/12/16/obamas-new-school-chief-supported-creating-gay-high-school-chica

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 05:46 PM
Wouldn't fly because he was dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air trying to hit railway lines and bridges. He wasn't targetting civilians, a suicide bomber just goes in and tries to kill anyone they can. You are out of line and your smear campaign of the members of the US Military is out of line.



Looks to me, you're out to conduct a smear campaign of myself and anyone else that criticizes Obama.

...
...
...

WE'RE out to start a smear campaign against McCain, yet your smear campaign against Obama, and a man of education, is completely justified. When you do it, it's criticising, but when we point out the flaws of your former candidate, it's a smear campaign. The double standards here are literally amazing.

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 05:51 PM
WE'RE out to start a smear campaign against McCain, yet your smear campaign against Obama, and a man of education, is completely justified. When you do it, it's criticising, but when we point out the flaws of your former candidate, it's a smear campaign. The double standards here are literally amazing.

No you're smearing Military Veterans and people who criticize Obama in general. The claim is that you're just going after McCain, doesn't hold any water whatsoever and you know it.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 05:56 PM
No you're smearing Military Veterans and people who criticize Obama in general. The claim is that you're just going after McCain, doesn't hold any water whatsoever and you know it.

Seems to me like a valid point. Many of the surviving Vietnam veterans are excessively mentally damaged due to the fact that they were put into situations where victory came at the cost of civilian lives. Truth is, McCain could have very well killed innocent women and children during the war, and blindly glorifying him for it serves no further purpose than to make us ignorant to his possible past transgressions. I won't argue its validity, as I have not seen proof for its validation, nor its invalidation. But, to me, it holds more water than claiming Obama "pals around with terrorists", and just because you want to generalise the situation involving McCain, or try to appeal to some sort of sacred status for war veterans that frankly isn't real, doesn't make that any less true.

GarfieldJL
12-16-2008, 05:58 PM
Seems to me like a valid point. The surviving Vietnam veterans are excessively mentally damaged due to the fact that they were put into situations that came at the cost of civilian lives. Truth is, McCain could have very well killed innocent woman and children during the war, and blindly glorifying him for it serves no further purpose than to make us ignorant to his possible past transgressions. I won't argue it's validity, as I have not seen proof for its validation, nor its invalidation. But, to me, it holds more water than claiming Obama "pals around with terrorists", and just because you want to generalise the situation involving McCain doesn't make that any less true.

No, your comparison is beyond the pale because it was a war-zone, do you honestly mean to tell me McCain was deliberately gunning for women and children? That's complete and total garbage and you know it.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 06:02 PM
No, your comparison is beyond the pale because it was a war-zone, do you honestly mean to tell me McCain was deliberately gunning for women and children? That's complete and total garbage and you know it.

So somehow, a warzone invalidates innocent human lives? That makes a lot of sense. And he just accidentally killed them, so that makes it okay? Kinda like how suicide bombers accidentally kill people they don't mean to in order to kill one person, or a group of people. Right. There's totally a difference there.

The difference? He's American, so that makes him better. Isn't that right?

Q
12-16-2008, 06:03 PM
While McCain payed for any "crimes" (perceived or otherwise) several times over through his severe injuries and his long tenure at the Hanoi Hilton where he was mercilessly tortured, Ayers has yet to pay for his very real and documented crimes or even to express any remorse for having committed them.
So somehow, a warzone invalidates innocent human lives?
Harsh as it may seem, yes. Such is the nature of war. Is it fair? No.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 06:05 PM
Because most of them are too young to have participated in something like that for starters... What is the age limit for "something like that"?

But I'm not the employer.Doesn't matter.

You either vet your associates and therefore have every right to criticize Obama for not doing the same or you do not and therefore have no right to criticize Obama for failing to live up to some standard which you only seem to apply to him. Slightly false dichotomy but you get the drift.

Well considering the fact that in most cases they wouldn't have been born at the time of the Weather Underground, its kinda impossible for them to have participated in bombing the Pentagon.The Weather Underground/their "bombing" of the Pentagon are not the only examples of domestic terrorism or domestic terrorist organizations.

The question is not whether you know anyone in that specific organization, rather at what point you personally vet your associates to determine whether or not they are a member of any terrorist organization. See if you don't do so yourself, then it would seem more than a little odd that you would expect others to.

Well considering they wouldn't have been born yet in most cases, and the fact none of my coworkers, nor has my boss ever bragged about something like that, kinda makes it highly unlikely. Whereas, Bill Ayers has bragged about what he did, wrote books on it, etc.

You quite frankly aren't exposing anything but your own smear campaign.Rather than answer the specific question that I've posed to you several times for clarity, you choose to introduce a strawman argument.

Per my last post, I have no other option than to assume that you do not vet your associates. As such, your expectation that Obama should have done so has no merit whatsoever.

Wouldn't fly because he was dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air trying to hit railway lines and bridges. He wasn't targetting civilians, a suicide bomber just goes in and tries to kill anyone they can. You are out of line and your smear campaign of the members of the US Military is out of line.Military action against civilians is terrorism. Period.

Looks to me, you're out to conduct a smear campaign of myself and anyone else that criticizes Obama.Nope just trying to keep you honest. I'm done here.

Adavardes
12-16-2008, 06:19 PM
While McCain payed for any "crimes" (perceived or otherwise) several times over through his severe injuries and his long tenure at the Hanoi Hilton where he was mercilessly tortured, Ayers has yet to pay for his very real and documented crimes or even to express any remorse for having committed them.

Sure. Because an unrelenting media attack on his character isn't enough to punish him for a failed attempt to bomb a building when he was a half-cocked hippy with a half-cocked mission to take down the establishment, which was, again, forty years ago.

Harsh as it may seem, yes. Such is the nature of war. Is it fair? No.

No. Maybe that's enough for you, but I don't believe the government ever has a right to kill innocents no matter how many zones they put up.

EnderWiggin
12-16-2008, 08:31 PM
Try the fact that Obama funnelled money to Ayers' projects to indoctrinate children into left-wing radicalism.


Are you kidding? Everytime you smear Obama all I hear is :words: Source please.


Truth is, you have no real evidence to support these claims, except perhaps for the sources you constantly use, which, by the way, are so steeped in conservative bias that their "truth" is little more than invented nonsense. You tell me to give up that media song and dance, how about you step out from behind your wall of factual neglect and things that Fox News tells you and take a look at some real facts.

Amen.

Oh, and I'd love to hear what you have to say about EnderWiggin calling you out on outright lying about what O'Reilly and Hannity have said on this issue earlier, as you seem to have pulled a Palin and shifted right around that.

Thanks :D


That was uncalled for, putting it mildly.

Uncalled for? Or true?
So, let me get this straight. When your preferred candidate's character is called into question, you act as if it's an outright unfair attack to his person that deserves only offense, yet when you call Obama's character into question, you act as if it's a perfectly valid basis for argument, even when you have yet to actually prove any of it with solid facts.

Hm.

QFE.

_EW_

Achilles
12-17-2008, 03:14 AM
Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals? Define "a lot of those ideals". Which ideals? I have a lot of ideals with regards to a lot of different subjects. If I sat on a board with someone who shared my ideals regarding philanthropy, does that automatically mean that person shares my ideals with regards to conservation?

I think everyone needs to take a step back and ask themselves how much they vet those they associate with. I've sat on boards, both as a member and as chair. I promise you that I've never thought to Google any of the people I've associated with to see if they were political activists that did silly things when I was 8 years old. I'm willing to bet that no one here can tell me they have either.

The whole "domestic terrorist" thing is silly to begin with. The fact that we're discussing Obama's "ties" to Ayers is sillier still. And the fact that many of the participants in this thread seem to have some completely overblown expectation re: how Obama should have vetted someone he associated with is the silliest thing of all (imo).

Seriously, I think that unless someone can clearly outline the vetting process they apply to their associates, they should be prohibited from commenting further.

As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks.Were you familiar with either the name "William Ayers" or "The Weather Underground" before Hillary Clinton brought them up? I will admit that I had never heard of either. Why is it reasonable that I should expect Obama to have been familiar with them (emphasis once more on the fact that Obama was 8 and may have been living overseas when all this occurred)?

Since open warfare is not a clandestine (semi- or otherwise) operation, and open warfare has specific intended targets (enemy combatants) rather than symbolic targets, actions conducted during war are not technically terrorist acts.I can see how this would work when imagining a scenario with two ground forces engaging each other on the battleground. What about when stealth bombers are on night-time bombing runs? I will argue that not all military action neatly dodges even the well-defined guidelines that you have provided.

McCain's actions during the Vietnam war thus do not fall under the definition of terrorism. Per the argument above, I disagree (assuming that any of his missions involved anything other than a bridge or a anti-aircraft missile site, etc).

Any willful violations of the laws of land warfare would fall under the heading of war crimes.It could be both things at the same time. I don't think we're forced into an either/or distinction.

Since there's no evidence that he attempted to violate the laws of warfare, he can't be charged with war crimes, either.Indeed. This is all largely hypothetical.

Thanks for the great links.

EnderWiggin
12-17-2008, 08:13 AM
Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?

I feel the same way as Achilles here. I consider us friends, Jae (to the extent that LF can create friendship.) Now, I (hypothetically) believe in cannibalism. However, I also believe in supporting our troops. Now, if you were running for office and one of your main campaign platforms was supporting our troops, I might throw you a fundraiser, yes?

But, the question is: Do you then believe in cannibalism? Only on days not ending in 'y'. :xp: --Jae
I think not.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-17-2008, 11:18 AM
Define "a lot of those ideals". Which ideals? I have a lot of ideals with regards to a lot of different subjects. If I sat on a board with someone who shared my ideals regarding philanthropy, does that automatically mean that person shares my ideals with regards to conservation?

So you're admitting that Ayers and Obama share some ideals?


I think everyone needs to take a step back and ask themselves how much they vet those they associate with. I've sat on boards, both as a member and as chair. I promise you that I've never thought to Google any of the people I've associated with to see if they were political activists that did silly things when I was 8 years old. I'm willing to bet that no one here can tell me they have either.

No, we do not need to sit back, and here's why, Obama signed off on one of Ayers' books, he started his political campaign in the guy's living room. Ayers brags about setting bombs, this isn't I didn't know about it, this is he bragged about it. He wasn't 8 years old when it was 2001 and Ayers said:
"I do not regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."


The whole "domestic terrorist" thing is silly to begin with. The fact that we're discussing Obama's "ties" to Ayers is sillier still. And the fact that many of the participants in this thread seem to have some completely overblown expectation re: how Obama should have vetted someone he associated with is the silliest thing of all (imo).

No, we're saying the fact that he didn't disassociate himself when the guy ended up in magazines, gave interviews on TV, etc. where he said he didn't regret setting bombs. He wasn't 8 years old in 2001.


Seriously, I think that unless someone can clearly outline the vetting process they apply to their associates, they should be prohibited from commenting further.

It wasn't just being a coworker, the guy brags about setting bombs and Obama still associates with him. Last I checked none of my coworkers were given interviews with major media outlets.


Were you familiar with either the name "William Ayers" or "The Weather Underground" before Hillary Clinton brought them up? I will admit that I had never heard of either. Why is it reasonable that I should expect Obama to have been familiar with them (emphasis once more on the fact that Obama was 8 and may have been living overseas when all this occurred)?


Actually I was, because Bernie Goldberg brought up a story sympathetic to terrorists published by either the New York Times or Time Magazine that hit the shelves on 9/11/2001, and William Ayers was the guy they interviewed.


I can see how this would work when imagining a scenario with two ground forces engaging each other on the battleground. What about when stealth bombers are on night-time bombing runs? I will argue that not all military action neatly dodges even the well-defined guidelines that you have provided.


They didn't have smart munitions in Vietnam, the technology wasn't in existence yet. You try dropping a dumbfire bomb with anti-aircraft guns shooting at you from a few hundred to a few thousand feet in the air going several hundred miles an hour. It would be very difficult to hit a target with perfect weather conditions.


Per the argument above, I disagree (assuming that any of his missions involved anything other than a bridge or a anti-aircraft missile site, etc).


To give a Star Wars equivalent, I wasn't aware the John McCain could use the force and hit a target that was only 2 meters wide without a targetting computer while skimming a trench with turbolaser fire flying all about. Seriously, that's what your argument boils down to.


Face it there is no comparison, Obama is friends with a man that tried to kill innocent people to make a political statement. McCain was flying a jet in a warzone and was being shot at.

Astor
12-17-2008, 11:27 AM
From Ayers on the subject of the 'We didn't do enough' statement:

: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough s***"' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'

Of course, i'll bet Ayers is just lying.

jonathan7
12-17-2008, 11:30 AM
Face it there is no comparison, Obama is friends with a man that tried to kill innocent people to make a political statement. McCain was flying a jet in a warzone and was being shot at.

Am I really missing something but why does it matter if Obama is or not friends with this guy? Are you responsible for your friends thoughts/feelings/actions? Some of my friends act like utter muppers sometimes, doesn't mean I stop being friends with them. Besides I'm going to yet again make my point, as you keep ignoring it...

I'm reposting this as I never got an answer, and to me this is the crux of the problem, if Obama is guilty of any crime he should tried in a court of law; under innocent until proven guilty proviso (i.e. how the justice system should work). This at least to me seems to be nothing but trial by media.

Last time I checked its not a crime to be friends with someone who has committed a crime.

GarfieldJL
12-17-2008, 12:01 PM
@Astor_Kaine, I couldn't care less what Ayers is trying to say to try to spin things because he has absolutely no credibility.

Am I really missing something but why does it matter if Obama is or not friends with this guy? Are you responsible for your friends thoughts/feelings/actions? Some of my friends act like utter muppers sometimes, doesn't mean I stop being friends with them. Besides I'm going to yet again make my point, as you keep ignoring it...

I'll say this again, I've been making this point at least 100 times. If it had been just Bill Ayers and his wife by themselves, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Fact is though, that is not just Bill Ayers and Ayers' wife. We have 4 people/organizations that he's associated with that all are tied together in one way or another that share the same ideaology just in the letter 'A'. We can go on and on about Obama's association with Ayers, but Ayers is just the tip of the iceberg. We also have Rezko, members of the PLO when it was a terrorist organization, we have Rev. Wright, we have Rev. Moss, we have Pastor Pfleger, and those are the people I can name off the top of my head. It isn't one or two bad associations, it's a whole pattern that leads one to doubt his judgement or wonder if he believes the same way these individuals do.

Last time I checked its not a crime to be friends with someone who has committed a crime.

Again it isn't just about Ayers, all these negative associations indicate he either has worse judgement than President Bush when Bush appointed Rumsfeld (which is kinda hard to top), or he believes the same radical ideaology that they do.

jonathan7
12-17-2008, 12:05 PM
<snip>

I still don't see what laws Obama has broken - if he's guilty of breaking a law, then he should be sent to a court of law.

Furthermore, I think Bush's associations with the Bin-Laden family are far more "concerning", than anything in thread about Obama. But again - Bush hasn't broken any laws, so I consider it a moot point.

Again it isn't just about Ayers, all these negative associations indicate he either has worse judgement than President Bush when Bush appointed Rumsfeld (which is kinda hard to top), or he believes the same radical ideaology that they do.

Are bad judgement or radical ideology illegal? I thought America was for freedom of speech?

GarfieldJL
12-17-2008, 12:09 PM
I still don't see what laws Obama has broken - if he's guilty of breaking a law, then he should be sent to a court of law.

We're not saying he should be thrown in jail, we're questioning his judgement and saying he either has poor judgement or has been lieing to everyone and the media isn't doing its job and calling him on it.


Furthermore, I think Bush's associations with the Bin-Laden family are far more "concerning", than anything in thread about Obama. But again - Bush hasn't broken any laws, so I consider it a moot point.

Didn't they disown Osama Bin-Laden though? Again, blaming family members of someone is a bit ridiculous. When the person chooses to directly associate with the person that actually set bombs to target innocent people, that's their choice.

If Obama was associated to Bill Ayers' brother (which I believe he doesn't have one, but speaking hypothetically), and not Bill Ayers this wouldn't even be a big deal in my opinion unless it surfaced that the brother participated in the bombings.

mimartin
12-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Are bad judgement or radical ideology illegal? I thought America was for freedom of speech?

left radical ideogy = Bad

right radical ideogy = Good

Understand? :xp:

GarfieldJL
12-17-2008, 12:57 PM
Last time I checked its not a crime to be friends with someone who has committed a crime.

If this were a Republican (I'm not sure about you, but a lot of others here would), a lot of you would be falling all over themselves demanding their resignation.

left radical ideogy = Bad

right radical ideogy = Good

Understand? :xp:

Are you trying to pick a fight? Right wing Radicals are lunatics too, but they are treated as lunatics, the left wing ones are treated as though they are the mainstream.

Achilles
12-17-2008, 01:00 PM
No, we do not need to sit back, and here's why, Obama signed off on one of Ayers' books, he started his political campaign in the guy's living room. <snipped>. You're more than welcome to provide a legitimate source to support this, however I suspect that you'll opt to provide a crappy source instead.

(hint: he started his political campaign in a Ramada Inn).

Ayers brags about setting bombs, this isn't I didn't know about it, this is he bragged about it. He wasn't 8 years old when it was 2001 and Ayers said:Obama and Ayers didn't meet in 2001, so I don't know what your point is.

If I meet someone, work with them for several years, and then find out Thing X about them, it doesn't make any sense to argue that I knew Thing X the whole time.

So, yes, "I didn't know about it" seems perfectly reasonable, even in light of the 2001 quote.

No, we're saying the fact that he didn't disassociate himself when the guy ended up in magazines, gave interviews on TV, etc. where he said he didn't regret setting bombs. He wasn't 8 years old in 2001.Same point as above.

And why are we to assume that Obama read those magazine interviews, saw Ayers on TV, etc? The men served together on a board. It's not like they were sleeping together.

Have you ever served on a board? It's not a 8-hour per day, 40-hour per week, day in and day out kinda thing. It's some phone calls and a couple of meeting each month. I served on one board with the same people for 2 years and only had face-to-face contact with 2 or 3 members more than 10 times. What "serving on a board together" is and what you seem to make it want to sound like are two completely separate things.

It wasn't just being a coworker, the guy brags about setting bombs and Obama still associates with him. Last I checked none of my coworkers were given interviews with major media outlets.And the last time I checked (a few posts ago), you couldn't tell me when you last checked :dozey:

Not much substance here, Garfield.

They didn't have smart munitions in Vietnam, the technology wasn't in existence yet. You try dropping a dumbfire bomb with anti-aircraft guns shooting at you from a few hundred to a few thousand feet in the air going several hundred miles an hour. It would be very difficult to hit a target with perfect weather conditions.1) Smart bombs aren't as precise as you seem to want to suggest they are. 2) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions isn't the topic. 3) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions has nothing to do with whether or not McCain ever flew mission that involve bombing villages.

To give a Star Wars equivalent, I wasn't aware the John McCain could use the force and hit a target that was only 2 meters wide without a targetting computer while skimming a trench with turbolaser fire flying all about. Seriously, that's what your argument boils down to.You can use what ever analogy you'd like. It's not going to change the fundamentals of my argument. Military action against civilians is terrorism.

Face it there is no comparison, Obama is friends with a man that tried to kill innocent people to make a political statement.No he didn't. How many people died or were injured by the bombs set by the Weather Underground? Please tell me precisely how many men, women, and/or children Bill Ayers has killed.

McCain was flying a jet in a warzone and was being shot at.Good for him.

left radical ideogy = Bad

right radical ideogy = Good

Understand? :xp:Quoted for awesome!

The Doctor
12-17-2008, 01:03 PM
You know Garfield, you mention this "laundry list" of people, as well as claim that "they all interconnect", but you've not once given any names, nor any explanation as to how they all interconnect with each other, or how they're tied to Obama, or any proof of any kind that isn't from a clearly biased source (ie Fox News, which is so ludicrously biased that it would make a Nazi blush).

Stop with the strawmen. Seriously. Until you do, I'm reporting every single one of your posts as flamebait, because that's all they really are. I don't think you even believe anything you're saying anymore, you're just trying to get a rise out of people.

Apologies. In the future, I will certainly refrain from arguing moderation decisions in public threads, and will utilise the PM system. ~ Doc

Thank you. :) --Jae

If this were a Republican (I'm not sure about you, but a lot of others here would), a lot of you would be falling all over themselves demanding their resignation.
If there were any proof, yes. But so far, you've given no such proof about Obama. At all. You're conducting a smear campaign, plain and simple, and I for one am sick and tired of listening to it. Guess what? Barack Obama is the next President of the United States. If he had actually done anything more questionable than any other political candidate in modern history, he would have been called on it by legitimate officials long ago.


left radical ideogy = Bad

right radical ideogy = Good

Understand? :xp:

You win this thread.

Astor
12-17-2008, 01:03 PM
If this were a Republican (I'm not sure about you, but a lot of others here would), a lot of you would be falling all over themselves demanding their resignation.

I for one certainly wouldn't, unless it was shown that the Republican in question was actually a part of any illicit activities, which, so far, you haven't proved about Obama.

GarfieldJL
12-17-2008, 01:33 PM
<snipped>. You're more than welcome to provide a legitimate source to support this, however I suspect that you'll opt to provide a crappy source instead.

(hint: he started his political campaign in a Ramada Inn).

Query: what was your source.

...Smerconish said his callers wanted to know about Obama's trip to Ayers' home in 1995 to discuss his pending state senate run: why go to his house to begin with?--Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/10/will-msm-challenge-obama-assumption-bill-ayers-was-rehabilitated)



Obama and Ayers didn't meet in 2001, so I don't know what your point is.


And I suppose Ayers didn't give a $200 contribution to Obama either? (Rhetorical question) They were in contact with each other all the way back in 1995 at the very least.


If I meet someone, work with them for several years, and then find out Thing X about them, it doesn't make any sense to argue that I knew Thing X the whole time.

Ordinarily you'd be correct but you're not a politician that has to worry about damage control on a regular basis.


So, yes, "I didn't know about it" seems perfectly reasonable, even in light of the 2001 quote.

You mean to tell me he never read the print media from Chicago where he lives? Chicago Magazine/August-2001 (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/)

And here is an article from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63)


And why are we to assume that Obama read those magazine interviews, saw Ayers on TV, etc? The men served together on a board. It's not like they were sleeping together.

Normally a politician or a staff member would be watching this if the candidate didn't. Again it's called damage control.


Have you ever served on a board? It's not a 8-hour per day, 40-hour per week, day in and day out kinda thing. It's some phone calls and a couple of meeting each month. I served on one board with the same people for 2 years and only had face-to-face contact with 2 or 3 members more than 10 times. What "serving on a board together" is and what you seem to make it want to sound like are two completely separate things.

Did you provide money to a fellow board member's pet project or draw up the rules with another member of that board?


And the last time I checked (a few posts ago), you couldn't tell me when you last checked :dozey:

Really I don't have to, I'm an employee not their manager. A situation like that is a manager's canary or some other executive's canary.


1) Smart bombs aren't as precise as you seem to want to suggest they are. 2) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions isn't the topic. 3) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions has nothing to do with whether or not McCain ever flew mission that involve bombing villages.

So you're accusing a man of deliberately trying to bomb civilians with absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever. Look, I'm not sure how many veterans would feel the same way but I imagine my grandfather (whom is now regretably deceased) whom served in World War II, would have decked you by now.


You can use what ever analogy you'd like. It's not going to change the fundamentals of my argument. Military action against civilians is terrorism.

And I consider your analogy to be a personal attack on military veterans, and my deceased grandfather because he fought in World War II.


No he didn't. How many people died or were injured by the bombs set by the Weather Underground? Please tell me precisely how many men, women, and/or children Bill Ayers has killed.

I'd have to try to dig up the case file, assuming I can find it online, but if you had listened to Sean Hannity at all, you would have seen the interviews with the FBI Agent that had infiltrated the Weather Underground. I think I remember 2 police officers were killed but that's just off the top of my head. Also even if he ended up missing the target several times, it wasn't from a lack of trying.

Look up John Murtaugh he was a kid at the time when Weather Underground firebombed his house. They narrowly escaped getting killed.

Hot Air Blog Archive with Video from Interview on Fox News (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/03/video-john-murtaugh-on-weather-underground-attempt-on-his-life/)

You think something like that is okay?

Jae Onasi
12-18-2008, 01:16 AM
OK, this will be opened in the morning since neither jonathan7 nor I are available to deal with this overnight.

Here's the ground rules on this thread: All Ayers discussion will now go here, because we staff are a little tired of the Ayers arguments being vomited all over any Obama threads that get started, taking discussion off topic by people pro and con. However, we did not want to cut off discussion on Ayers entirely, hence this thread.

We're not going to discuss Ayers in any further threads unless Ayers does something new that turns out to be newsworthy. Any future posts on Ayers in other threads will be deleted as spam. You are free to test our willingness to delete these posts as spam, however, we will feel free to infract accordingly.

NO FLAMING HERE. If you don't want to discuss the Ayers issue in a civil manner, find any of the hundreds of other threads here where you can discuss issues with civility. In fact, one of the reasons for this thread is so that you can completely ignore the Ayers issue if it bothers you that much by simply not reading this thread. If you wish to read this thread and something angers you, you are free to make whatever finger gestures and loud griping that you wish at your monitor. As long as you don't type flaming comments in and then hit the 'post reply' button, we'll all be just fine.

Furthermore, the Ayers controversy has resulted in more reported posts on both sides of the fence than probably any other subject, and most of the reports were for things that were not against the rules. If you're tempted to report a post, make sure it actually breaks the rules. We don't want to hear pointless whining about how someone disagrees with your ideas or that you don't like someone's sources. The report post feature is for when someone violates the rules, and is not the LF equivalent of complaining "Mom!!! My little sister is looking at me funny!!" Civil disagreement is not against the rules. Liberalism is not against the rules. Conservatism is not against the rules. If you throw out sources from either the far left or the far right, expect people to call you on the bias, as long as they do it respectfully.

Carry on with the Ayers discussion here.

jonathan7
12-18-2008, 05:40 AM
Thread - re-opened; follow Jae's instructions -- j7

Astor
12-18-2008, 06:09 AM
I don't suppose the fact that Ayers turned himself in, and had the charges against him dropped means anything?

Jae Onasi
12-18-2008, 11:31 AM
It means he had a really good lawyer, the police screwed up the investigation of the case, or both. Ayers has admitted to setting bombs. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63&scp=1&sq=sep%2011%20ayers&st=cse)

Adavardes
12-18-2008, 01:12 PM
Oh noes, the man set up bombs forty years ago! Get over it, seriously, the man made major mistakes, and now he's turned himself in. The man is a college professor, meaning he mostlikely holds a doctorate in the subject he teaches, and for the past forty years, insofar as I know, he has observed and followed the laws of our country. "We didn't do enough" is a very, very vague statement, and it could mean a number of things. Thusly, it comes down to what he says it means, not what you say it means. I am very, very sorry, but if anyone has credibility about what Ayers means when he says something, it's Ayers, because, guess what?

He's Ayers!

In terms of credibility regarding the thoughts, actions, and statements of William Ayers, when it comes down to you or Ayers, Ayers beats you hands down. You have never met the man, and the only things you know about him are based on a media gambit to sully Obama's good name. You have no viable evidence to support your claims, and are at this point throwing around accusations and insults to further an already dying point of argument. Calling him a terrorist is laughable, because you have yet to honestly prove any of this shameless libel with viable sources.

Jae Onasi
12-18-2008, 02:45 PM
Oh noes, the man set up bombs forty years ago! Get over it, seriously, the man made major mistakes, and now he's turned himself in. The man is a college professor, meaning he mostlikely holds a doctorate in the subject he teaches, and for the past forty years, insofar as I know, he has observed and followed the laws of our country. "We didn't do enough" is a very, very vague statement, and it could mean a number of things. Thusly, it comes down to what he says it means, not what you say it means. I am very, very sorry, but if anyone has credibility about what Ayers means when he says something, it's Ayers, because, guess what?

He's Ayers!
I was clarifying for Astor that Ayers had admitted to setting the bombs, and should have quoted Astor's post to be specific about that. My apologies for the confusion on that, and let me state one more time for the record: I do not accuse Obama of terrorism, nor do I say Obama's judgment is in question because he associates with someone who has had a criminal past. I have a friend who's been arrested in the past repeatedly for male prostitution and drug use but who now holds down a job and contributes positively to society. It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and prostitute myself (and yes, feel free to laugh hysterically at the very idea of Jae being a streetwalker), nor does it mean we share the same views on sex.

In terms of credibility regarding the thoughts, actions, and statements of William Ayers, when it comes down to you or Ayers, Ayers beats you hands down. You have never met the man, and the only things you know about him are based on a media gambit to sully Obama's good name. etc, etc, etc.
Let me switch gears at this point and address this as a moderator: this is a post you had written last night that had been deleted by jonathan7, and which you re-posted verbatim after you had been told to re-write it in a way that wasn't flame-baiting. You've earned a 3-day time-out from Kavar's/Senate for violating Kavar's rules and moderator actions.

EnderWiggin
12-18-2008, 07:20 PM
It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and prostitute myself (and yes, feel free to laugh hysterically at the very idea of Jae being a streetwalker), nor does it mean we share the same views on sex.

Done. :D

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-19-2008, 05:08 PM
Oh noes, the man set up bombs forty years ago! Get over it, seriously, the man made major mistakes, and now he's turned himself in.

I don't care if he set the bombs 50 years ago, he was an adult when he set those bombs, this isn't a 5 year old finding a gun and accidentally shooting someone. This is an adult that formed a group to set bombs and commit other terrorist acts.

The man is a college professor, meaning he mostlikely holds a doctorate in the subject he teaches, and for the past forty years, insofar as I know, he has observed and followed the laws of our country. "We didn't do enough" is a very, very vague statement, and it could mean a number of things. Thusly, it comes down to what he says it means, not what you say it means. I am very, very sorry, but if anyone has credibility about what Ayers means when he says something, it's Ayers, because, guess what?

The fact he holds a doctorate and is a college professor makes it so I literally no faith in the integrity of the field of liberal arts (especially at the school where he teaches). He teaches students left wing radical ideology. He's a terrorist, all the crimes he committed were while he was an adult. I would not trust anyone with his record around children or teaching teachers, period.

I have a friend who's been arrested in the past repeatedly for male prostitution and drug use but who now holds down a job and contributes positively to society. It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and prostitute myself (and yes, feel free to laugh hysterically at the very idea of Jae being a streetwalker), nor does it mean we share the same views on sex.


Jae, your friend isn't a man that tried to murder people through bombings, nor did your friend try to kill children with a firebomb. Furthermore, Ayers is unrepentent, he isn't sorry for what he did aside from not bombing more places.

To be blunt people are missing the point, Jae you gave one unusual association, okay fine no biggie. However, people are missing the point I am trying to make. Ayers is only the tip of the iceberg, there are a number of other associations Obama has that all share Ayers' views, so it isn't just about Ayers, he's just part of a pattern of associations.

jrrtoken
12-19-2008, 06:01 PM
If even Obama did associate with a former terrorist some time ago, does it really matter? Does being acquainted with a suspected criminal make someone a criminal themselves? I can't figure out what you're exactly trying to imply about Obama. Does this make Obama a terrorist now, since he knows a former terrorist?

GarfieldJL
12-19-2008, 06:05 PM
If even Obama did associate with a former terrorist some time ago, does it really matter?

If there is a pattern of him doing so over a number of years, and I think I can find instances with him an Ayers from 2006, maybe some stuff even as late as this year. That's hardly a long time ago.


Does being acquainted with a suspected criminal make someone a criminal themselves? I can't figure out what you're exactly trying to imply about Obama. Does this make Obama a terrorist now, since he knows a former terrorist?

Ayers is only one piece of the puzzle, just one dot among many. He's had a number of radical associations over the course of his life, and they all happen to interconnect. The point is how many dots do you need before it becomes a pattern.

Obama was still associating with the man after those interviews in 2001.

jonathan7
12-19-2008, 06:07 PM
If there is a pattern of him doing so over a number of years, and I think I can find instances with him an Ayers from 2006, maybe some stuff even as late as this year. That's hardly a long time ago.

Ayers is only one piece of the puzzle, just one dot among many. He's had a number of radical associations over the course of his life, and they all happen to interconnect. The point is how many dots do you need before it becomes a pattern.

Obama was still associating with the man after those interviews in 2001.

Lets talk evidence - where is any evidence that Obama's "radical left" associations have effected his policies. Please indicate any of Obama's policies you think are dangerous far left ones?

jrrtoken
12-19-2008, 06:08 PM
You haven't answered my question: How does Obama's acquaintance with Ayers even affect Obama?

GarfieldJL
12-19-2008, 06:18 PM
Lets talk evidence - where is any evidence that Obama's "radical left" associations have effected his policies. Please indicate any of Obama's policies you think are dangerous far left ones?

Yes there is, I'd only been posting it for the past few monthes. The Illinois-State senate situation concerning the right-to-life bill for infants that were born after a botched abortion. Only conservative sites brought it up, but they had an audio tape + transcripts from the Illinois state senate and transcripts of the bill as well. It was his association to Planned Parenthood he had a 100% rating for them.

There is other stuff I had posted in this forum with sources concerning his ties to ACORN, Ahneberg Project (with Ayers), and others.

You haven't answered my question: How does Obama's acquaintance with Ayers even affect Obama?

If it were just Ayers, it wouldn't, but I'm not just talking about Ayers, the domestic terrorist is just one of many radical associations that have a similar ideology with each other.

jrrtoken
12-19-2008, 06:22 PM
If it were just Ayers, it wouldn't, but I'm not just talking about Ayers, the domestic terrorist is just one of many radical associations that have a similar ideology with each other.So you're saying that Obama is as radical as Ayers? That Obama would be radical enough to bomb buildings?

jonathan7
12-19-2008, 06:26 PM
Yes there is, I'd only been posting it for the past few monthes. The Illinois-State senate situation concerning the right-to-life bill for infants that were born after a botched abortion. Only conservative sites brought it up, but they had an audio tape + transcripts from the Illinois state senate and transcripts of the bill as well. It was his association to Planned Parenthood he had a 100% rating for them.

This answers my question how? I don't follow how any of that is radical left?

There is other stuff I had posted in this forum with sources concerning his ties to ACORN, Ahneberg Project (with Ayers), and others.

I don't see why ties to ACORN are a problem?

EnderWiggin
12-19-2008, 06:48 PM
I don't see why ties to ACORN are a problem?
agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

_EW_

The Doctor
12-19-2008, 06:58 PM
No doubt Fox News has him convinced that a clerk of some sort working for ACORN used salty language at a political rally 35 years ago, and said once that he wished he had participated in a more successful rally sworn more. I mean, an organisation that would employ such a man cannot be trusted, after all. :rolleyes:

Q
12-20-2008, 12:20 AM
To me, the only difference between Ayers and Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) is that Kaczynski was more competent at his craft and therefore more successful.

Jae Onasi
12-20-2008, 10:36 PM
Lets talk evidence - where is any evidence that Obama's "radical left" associations have effected his policies. Please indicate any of Obama's policies you think are dangerous far left ones?


Jae, your friend isn't a man that tried to murder people through bombings, nor did your friend try to kill children with a firebomb. Furthermore, Ayers is unrepentent, he isn't sorry for what he did aside from not bombing more places.

To be blunt people are missing the point, Jae you gave one unusual association, okay fine no biggie. However, people are missing the point I am trying to make. Ayers is only the tip of the iceberg, there are a number of other associations Obama has that all share Ayers' views, so it isn't just about Ayers, he's just part of a pattern of associations.

I don't know if my friend tried to murder or not. I haven't seen his criminal history, and I doubt he's a murderer, though he was into some pretty kinky stuff that would be way out of line to discuss here. I wouldn't leave my kids with him, either, much as I like him.

I have to agree with jonathan7 on this--these associations don't prove how Obama thinks. Obama may associate with Ayers because of his education policies and not because of Ayers' view on war. The types of institutions where they had their associations are just as important, and it looks to me like their interactions were primarily on education, getting people registered to vote and active in the political process in general, and possibly juvenile criminal justice issues. I hang out with my ex-con friend because we have common interests in history re-enactment, Tudor costuming, and Renaissance music and dance, not because I want to be involved in sex crimes with him.

I discount the ACORN link--there have been plenty of instances where someone worked for a company involved in some type of fraud but had no knowledge of the fraud because it wasn't in their department. I worked for a nursing home practice for a short time that turned out to be amazingly fraudulent with billing and probably (minimal if any) service by a couple of the doctors, but I didn't know it because I never saw the books, I just did the medical side of things. My employment in a fraudulent company did not make me or my actions fraudulent, though it certainly made me jaded about the treatment people in nursing homes get by some less-than-honest providers. If something came out in the future regarding Obama and Acorn, some document that showed Obama was directly involved in voter registration/voter fraud, then that would be a problem. However, Acorn isn't the subject of discussion here, so I'll leave it at that.

the only difference between Ayers and Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) is that Kaczynski was more competent.
Point Man said something like this and I about fell over laughing, morbid as that is.

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 10:24 PM
I don't know if my friend tried to murder or not. I haven't seen his criminal history, and I doubt he's a murderer, though he was into some pretty kinky stuff that would be way out of line to discuss here. I wouldn't leave my kids with him, either, much as I like him.

Jae, your friend doesn't brag about bombing places does he?


I have to agree with jonathan7 on this--these associations don't prove how Obama thinks. Obama may associate with Ayers because of his education policies and not because of Ayers' view on war. The types of institutions where they had their associations are just as important, and it looks to me like their interactions were primarily on education, getting people registered to vote and active in the political process in general, and possibly juvenile criminal justice issues. I hang out with my ex-con friend because we have common interests in history re-enactment, Tudor costuming, and Renaissance music and dance, not because I want to be involved in sex crimes with him.

Here's the thing though, you're being honest about your association with your friend and upfront about it. Obama has lied about the depth of his association repeatedly, even making claims that were irrefutably false. Something about him being just a guy in his neighborhood where their kids happen to go to the same school.

When Ayers' kids are adults.


I discount the ACORN link--there have been plenty of instances where someone worked for a company involved in some type of fraud but had no knowledge of the fraud because it wasn't in their department. I worked for a nursing home practice for a short time that turned out to be amazingly fraudulent with billing and probably (minimal if any) service by a couple of the doctors, but I didn't know it because I never saw the books, I just did the medical side of things. My employment in a fraudulent company did not make me or my actions fraudulent, though it certainly made me jaded about the treatment people in nursing homes get by some less-than-honest providers. If something came out in the future regarding Obama and Acorn, some document that showed Obama was directly involved in voter registration/voter fraud, then that would be a problem. However, Acorn isn't the subject of discussion here, so I'll leave it at that.

If your case matched his, which it does not I would agree with you. Fact is, Obama was in charge of the department that committed the fraud. Project Vote is what he was in charge of to be specific. The reason why Obama's associations keep being brought up is because he continually lies about their depth and tries to cover them up.

To me, the only difference between Ayers and Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) is that Kaczynski was more competent at his craft and therefore more successful.

Point Man said something like this and I about fell over laughing, morbid as that is.

That is not even remotely funny, I'd advise you all to read: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

The article was written by John M. Murtagh, whose family was targetted by the Weather Underground (which Ayers headed) when John was a 9 year old boy.

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.


This article continues another tidbit of interest:
Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

That's just a little bit of that article, the fact that Ayers is even considered a respected professor is one of the reasons why I'm very concerned about the education system. And Obama is friends with this domestic-terrorist lunatic. This wasn't simple property damage, they tried to deliberately kill people.

jrrtoken
12-21-2008, 10:29 PM
You still haven't really answered the question at hand: How does Obama's association with Ayers directly affect Obama?

EnderWiggin
12-21-2008, 10:32 PM
Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

This is all speculation, as it was never proven to be the Weather Underground Organization. However, even if it was the WUO, you don't know that Bill Ayers was the one who planned (or if he was even involved in) this bombing. Not a real major point, just something to think about.

If your case matched his, which it does not I would agree with you. Fact is, Obama was in charge of the department that committed the fraud. Project Vote is what he was in charge of to be specific. The reason why Obama's associations keep being brought up is because he continually lies about their depth and tries to cover them up.


1. Project Vote is an independent organization, which is not a part of ACORN (although they do coordinate from time to time).
2. Please provide a source where Obama lies about/covers up Project Vote (because AFAIK, he's been open about heading the registration drive you're referring to).
3. Obama only represented ACORN in a '95 lawsuit, and is completely detached from the voter fraud issue.
4. Even if Project Vote (or ACORN) members did register a few false forms, there's no indication that Obama planned or even had knowledge of it.
5. This thread is titled "The Ayers Thread." Please try not to spam or derail this thread because of other issues that you find fault with (albeit falsely).

Thanks in advance.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 10:54 PM
This is all speculation, as it was never proven to be the Weather Underground Organization. However, even if it was the WUO, you don't know that Bill Ayers was the one who planned (or if he was even involved in) this bombing. Not a real major point, just something to think about.

Except for the fact they basically admitted to doing it.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings. -- http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html



1. Project Vote is an independent organization, which is not a part of ACORN (although they do coordinate from time to time).


Wrong they are closely related to each other.


2. Please provide a source where Obama lies about Project Vote (because AFAIK, he's been open about heading the registration drive you're referring to).


Oh I can go beyond that cause this is where the articles were disappearing during the 2008 Elections.

Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible. Unfortunately, those behind the attempted cover-up failed to realize that in today's day and age, nothing disappears forever. There also exists another layer of the web, the hidden web, which is full of information included in proprietary scholarly databases where these very same "missing" articles can be easily uncovered.
-- http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203

Oh and I also actually saw this happen online, because some of the sources that disappeared were ones I used for posts I made tieing Obama to ACORN.


3. Obama only represented ACORN in a '95 lawsuit, and is completely detached from the voter fraud issue.

4. Even if Project Vote (or ACORN) members did register a few false forms, there's no indication that Obama planned or even had knowledge of it.


I'm not saying Obama planned the fraud stuff in 2008, but he probably was involved in prior elections.


5. This thread is titled "The Ayers Thread." Please try not to spam or derail this thread because of other issues that you find fault with (albeit falsely).


I'm not derailing the topic, I'm pointing out the fact that Ayers is just one piece in the puzzle.

You still haven't really answered the question at hand: How does Obama's association with Ayers directly affect Obama?

I've answered the question several times, I'm going to quote myself.
If it were just Ayers, it wouldn't, but I'm not just talking about Ayers, the domestic terrorist is just one of many radical associations that have a similar ideology with each other.

That fact is that Ayers is just one of many pieces, this is why I don't agree with this being seperated from the Obama thread because this is just one of many associations, I haven't even gotten through all the associations that start with the letter 'A' yet. There's plenty more where Ayers came from.

jonathan7
12-21-2008, 10:58 PM
I've answered the question several times, I'm going to quote myself.


That fact is that Ayers is just one of many pieces, this is why I don't agree with this being seperated from the Obama thread because this is just one of many associations, I haven't even gotten through all the associations that start with the letter 'A' yet. There's plenty more where Ayers came from.

But you've failed to show how this effects Obama's thinking, or how it effects Obama's policy making. At most you've shown he's poor at picking social company; though I'd argue to a much lesser extent than Bush. Further more we could talk how Bush won via strange ballots and very narrowly; Obama didn't win narrowly; so it's a lot more pertinent with regards Bush than it is Obama.

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 11:12 PM
But you've failed to show how this effects Obama's thinking, or how it effects Obama's policy making. At most you've shown he's poor at picking social company; though I'd argue to a much lesser extent than Bush. Further more we could talk how Bush won via strange ballots and very narrowly; Obama didn't win narrowly; so it's a lot more pertinent with regards Bush than it is Obama.

Actually in 2000, the Supreme Court ended the recount for a pretty legitimate reason. Also your argument holds absolutely no water, because even Joseph Lieberman slammed the Democrats for some of their tactics (and he was Gore's running mate).

For many Democrats immersed in Florida's disputed presidential election, there was no worse moment than the one on Sunday, Nov. 19, when Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on national television and said that election officials should give the ''benefit of the doubt'' to military voters.

Until then, the Democrats had conducted a full-scale effort to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures. But on that morning, with Republicans attacking the Gore-Lieberman campaign for eliminating the votes of hundreds of men and women in the armed forces, Mr. Lieberman effectively disavowed the strategy. -- New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407EEDC133BF936A25754C0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

Then there is http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

To sum it up the Democrats were trying to violate the "Equal Protection Clause".

To Quote the information found:

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy.

That seven includes at least 1 probably 2 liberal justices and the swing vote. It wasn't a 1 vote decision, the Democrats got caught trying to cheat, even their own VP candidate bashed them for it.


Now to answer the question about Obama's thinking, by itself it doesn't but considering the number of associations and even Obama has said something about an acorn not falling far from a tree. You have a huge number of radical left friends, chances are you're also radical left, especially when you're funnelling money to their projects.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-21-2008, 11:22 PM
Now to answer the question about Obama's thinking, by itself it doesn't but considering the number of associations and even Obama has said something about an acorn not falling far from a tree. You have a huge number of radical left friends, chances are you're also radical left, especially when you're funnelling money to their projects.Fine. He has "radical left" ideologies. Please inform me as to why I should care. Please inform me why I should discount everything Ayers has done based on some of his actions -- why do his crimes cancel out his good deeds? Or are you counting them as crimes as well because you disagree with his politics?

Thanks.

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 11:26 PM
Fine. He has "radical left" ideologies. Please inform me as to why I should care. Please inform me why I should discount everything Ayers has done based on some of his actions -- why do his crimes cancel out his good deeds? Or are you counting them as crimes as well because you disagree with his politics?

I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed. That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatic's pet projects of radicalizing children.

jonathan7
12-21-2008, 11:31 PM
*Warning, some may consider this controversial*

On Bush's 2000 election? You really don't want to push this; How is America a democracy, when the popular vote, i.e. the Person with the most votes wasn't president;

George W. Bush Republican Texas 50,456,002 47.87%
Al Gore Democratic Tennessee 50,999,897 48.38%

So you have States being worth more than others, which puts pay to the idea of everyone being born equal, no? Put's pay to the notion of one man, one vote. So basically you had a guy in charge, that the majority of people didn't vote for. Do you really want to go here? To bring that on topic, Obama was swept in, some 10 million ahead of McCain, meaning to the majority of Americans, these supposed left-wing radicals don't concern them.

Now to answer the question about Obama's thinking, by itself it doesn't but considering the number of associations and even Obama has said something about an acorn not falling far from a tree.

See, here's my problem Garfield; I'm not Obama's biggest fan, as he reminds me of Blair in '97. However he's already proven he's a better President than Bush as he's said he's going to get rid of Guantánamo Bay (the biggest single own goal, in politics, ever! We represent freedom, but will lock people up and torture them). It seems to me your paranoid about Obama, yet to be honest, all this Ayers stuff is irrelevant, as unless you show facts about how Obama's supposed radical-left associations are effect policy it's all irrelevant, as you've just got conjecture. And I would once again put forward that if he's guilty of anything let due process do it's course.

I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed. That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.

Good to see freedom of speech is still alive. Who should decide what is, or is not allowed in school?

jrrtoken
12-21-2008, 11:31 PM
The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatic's pet projects of radicalizing children.Before you go into more ravings on how liberals are raping America, I'd like for you to very closely at this post and actually answer the question, rather than change the topic:
But you've failed to show how this effects Obama's thinking, or how it effects Obama's policy making. At most you've shown he's poor at picking social company; though I'd argue to a much lesser extent than Bush. Further more we could talk how Bush won via strange ballots and very narrowly; Obama didn't win narrowly; so it's a lot more pertinent with regards Bush than it is Obama.

Adavardes
12-21-2008, 11:31 PM
I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed. That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatic's pet projects of radicalizing children.

I want:

1. Proof that he ever actually bragged about his violent actions specifically, not his political stance, and said "I wish I blew up more ****".
2. Proof that he has ever taught his students left-wing radicalism, and is called such by a few sources, both conservative AND liberal, and
3. Sources other than Newsbusters, Fox News, and similar news sources with totally conservative bias.

Until I get these, this attack on Ayers is wrong in my eyes, and always will be. End of story.

Furthermore, if you are seeking to somehow prove that his so called "relationship" with Obama is indicative of Obama's philosophies, I want:

1. Proof of affiliations with these "20 other disreputable people and organisations"
2. Proof that this somehow means he believes what they believe, with viable sources in psychology that effectually argue against free will
3. All of these things without touching a Newsbusters blog, Fox news, or similar news sources with totally conservative bias.

Good luck.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-21-2008, 11:34 PM
I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed.Or are you counting them as crimes as well because you disagree with his politics?My divining powers grow with each passing day.

That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.Flawed logic. Criminals can be smart as well.

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatics pet projects of radicalizing children.Yes, we get that he's done bad things, but why should we a) believe your whole indoctrination theory; and b) agree with your demonization of left wing politics?

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 11:47 PM
1. Proof that he ever actually bragged about his violent actions specifically, not his political stance, and said "I wish I blew up more ****".

Oh you mean This:
You mean to tell me he never read the print media from Chicago where he lives? Chicago Magazine/August-2001 (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/)

And here is an article from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B 63)


2. Proof that he has ever taught his students left-wing radicalism, and is called such by a few sources, both conservative AND liberal, and
3. Sources other than Newsbusters, Fox News, and similar news sources with totally conservative bias.


I'm going to be completely blunt: Try to prove me wrong on my statements concerning what he teaches, because I'm kinda sick of posting up proof for you to not bother reading especially since I can't stand the New York Times at all. And try to find a source that isn't a left wing propaganda pulpit to back up your sources. I can find stuff to prove he taught left-wing radicalism, but I'm quite frankly getting a little annoyed with people demanding I provide evidence that I already provided at least a dozen times.

Flawed logic. Criminals can be smart as well.

I really don't care how smart he is aside from the fact it makes him even more dangerous to children.


Yes, we get that he's done bad things, but why should we a) believe your whole indoctrination theory; and b) agree with your demonization of left wing politics?

Teachers are in a position of authority over their students and are extremely vulnerable, look at the inappropriate (putting it mildly) teacher/student relationships as an example.

Astor
12-22-2008, 07:55 AM
I'm not saying Obama planned the fraud stuff in 2008, but he probably was involved in prior elections.

Probably? You'll have to do better than speculation to convince us of that.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 08:04 PM
Probably? You'll have to do better than speculation to convince us of that.

I'm still waiting on you to prove me wrong about what I've said about Ayers, and not using a left wing propaganda source in the process, because I've used both liberal and conservative sources to back up my statements.

The Doctor
12-22-2008, 08:47 PM
Burden of proof is on you, Garfield, the accussing party. You have still not proven, to anyone, that Obama's ties to Ayers - or anyone else you're trying to unjustly smear, for that matter - has any sort of impact on his own views. I am personally surrounded by people I would classify as right wing nutbars of varying relationships ranging from unfortunate acquaintanceship to one of my closest friends. Their political views and beliefs have absolutely no effect on my own. Prove that Obama is being negatively influenced by these so-called radicals, or just please stop.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 08:56 PM
Burden of proof is on you, Garfield, the accussing party. You have still not proven, to anyone, that Obama's ties to Ayers - or anyone else you're trying to unjustly smear, for that matter - has any sort of impact on his own views.

And I have provided proof several times over, but people have simply chosen to ignore the articles I've posted, and it doesn't matter if they included videos, transcripts from the Illinois State Senate, Financial Ties, etc. Nobody bothers to read them, even when I use left-wing sources to back up what I say.


I am personally surrounded by people I would classify as right wing nutbars of varying relationships ranging from unfortunate acquaintanceship to one of my closest friends.

Are you saying I'm a nutcase too, I really don't think they are as out there as you're saying.

Their political views and beliefs have absolutely no effect on my own. Prove that Obama is being negatively influenced by these so-called radicals, or just please stop.

Have your friends committed terrorist acts and tried to kill people? Furthermore have you provided money to further their ideological agenda?

jonathan7
12-22-2008, 09:02 PM
And I have provided proof several times over, but people have simply chosen to ignore the articles I've posted, and it doesn't matter if they included videos, transcripts from the Illinois State Senate, Financial Ties, etc. Nobody bothers to read them, even when I use left-wing sources to back up what I say.

For everyone to think about; Both sides are both complaining of this. This thread is going no-where fast. I don't think either side is going to back down at all. -- j7

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 09:18 PM
For everyone to think about; Both sides are both complaining of this. This thread is going no-where fast. I don't think either side is going to back down at all. -- j7

jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.

The fact he is a College Professor from Chicago doesn't inspire confidence, because Chicago has one of the worst school systems in the country.

jrrtoken
12-22-2008, 09:24 PM
jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.Are trying to imply that you're only sure that and article is true if it's hosted on a conservative news site?
The fact he is a College Professor from Chicago doesn't inspire confidence, because Chicago has one of the worst school systems in the country.I suppose you're right, the University of Chicago is one of the world's most prestigious universities. Home to 82 Nobel laureates, it's obviously a complete party school. :rolleyes:

Adavardes
12-22-2008, 09:29 PM
jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.

No, conservatives would never be willing to admit that a man they're trying to pin Obama on isn't as bad as they're painting him. That'd totally ruin their whole campaign against the evil terrorist Obama, who is going to blow up our nation. :rolleyes:

And, I'm fairly sure that, as pre-established by your earlier posts, that your definition of what is "left-wing" is very much open for debate. If not completely erroneous. You keep saying that liberals are painting conservatives as nutbars, but you try to make us seem like crazed, homicidal radicalists (ineffectually, I might add), merely to serve your purpose, which, btw, you have yet to share with us.

I would like to know exactly what the point of calling Ayers a terrorist really is. What attempting to prove these 20 or so connections you claim Obama has serves. Are you, or are you not, attempting to prove the point that Obama is somehow affected by these "associations" (still totally not proven), and that because of this, he is going to cause intentional harm to our country?

I'd like to know, because if you are, then I'm not wasting my time with this anymore.

jonathan7
12-22-2008, 09:34 PM
jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.

You can disagree but the thread has generally gone like this;

Person 1: Ayers is a terrorist and is effecting Obama.

Person 2: No he isn't/

Person 3: No he isn't

Person 1: Yes he is.

Person 2. No he isn't

Person 4. No he isn't

Person 5 "No he isn't" - QFT

Person 1: Yes he is

Person 2: No He isn't

Etc Etc.

Jae falls over laughing.... :xp:

Adavardes
12-22-2008, 09:53 PM
Again see the September 11, 2001 news article by the New York Times of an interview of Bill Ayers. That I had posted repeatedly in another thread. Now consider the public backlash from the events of 9/11.

Bill Ayers has nothing to do with Bush. Stop using him to make your rhetoric seem more valid, because no two people have ever had less to do with one another than these two. Not because Bush is the pinnacle of perfection and Ayers is some villianous scum, no, just because Ayers is liberal, and Bush is conservative. And also too busy being in bed with the oil industry to handle another relationship.

Also, anything that happened during 9/11 isn't at all relevant to the public opinion of Bush. Most Americans were scared, and Bush fed off that fear and amplified it to accomplish his alterior goal, which was to start that vendetta on his father's old nemesis. Therefore, he used empty threats of terrorism and nuclear war to garner public support.

And we shouldn't consider him the most powerful terrorist alive... why?

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0306-21.htm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/18/417347.aspx

Inversely, I got a kick out of this, as it completely contradicts every other source I've seen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 09:54 PM
Forever Night, I was making the point that Bush did not suspend it.

Bill Ayers has nothing to do with Bush. Stop using him to make your rhetoric seem more valid, because no two people have ever had less to do with one another than these two. Not because Bush is the pinnacle of perfection and Ayers is some villianous scum, no, just because Ayers is liberal, and Bush is conservative. And also too busy being in bed with the oil industry to handle another relationship.

I'm talking about the New York Times article and what the public reaction to it was.

Adavardes
12-22-2008, 10:05 PM
I'm talking about the New York Times article and what the public reaction to it was.

Then what was the point of dropping Ayers in there?

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 10:06 PM
Okay and Now I shall tie this together financially

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=190343

A video of a report by CNN.

Edit:
Then what was the point of dropping Ayers in there?

Because he was the guy that the New York Times Interviewed...


And I haven't gotten to pointing out MSNBC's pathological hatred of the President yet, but I'll get to it soon enough.

Adavardes
12-22-2008, 10:27 PM
Because he was the guy that the New York Times Interviewed...


And I haven't gotten to pointing out MSNBC's pathological hatred of the President yet, but I'll get to it soon enough.

Sure, because that's all you meant by throwing his name around.

And I think you're confusing Bush with Obama, and MSNBC for Fox News.

Or, you could be confusing Bush with facts and logic. Not sure yet.

The Doctor
12-22-2008, 10:59 PM
And I have provided proof several times over, but people have simply chosen to ignore the articles I've posted, and it doesn't matter if they included videos, transcripts from the Illinois State Senate, Financial Ties, etc. Nobody bothers to read them, even when I use left-wing sources to back up what I say.
You have provided biased sources that have, in my opinion, absolutely 100% no credibility. At all.


Are you saying I'm a nutcase too, I really don't think they are as out there as you're saying.
:xp:
And you have no right to comment on my associates' political ideologies, however, by saying that they "aren't that out there". You don't know them, quite frankly. Kinda like how you don't know Ayers, but we won't touch on that one.


Have your friends committed terrorist acts and tried to kill people? Furthermore have you provided money to further their ideological agenda?
Irrelevant. One of my best friends is a die-hard, Bible-thumping Christian, and both he and my favourite uncle are strong supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada. By your logic, that means I have to be just as right-wing as they are. The extent of their ideology doesn't change the fact that their own beliefs have no effect on me whatsoever. That's the point you're cimpletely ignoring missing here.

Jae Onasi
12-22-2008, 11:01 PM
FoxNews' reporting in the regular news segments is considered factual. The opinion reporting and commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity are indeed biased to the conservative, but the reporting of the news itself is accurate. Otherwise, using the logic that we should throw everything by Fox out, we should throw out everything said by CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes because of their significant liberal bias in their opinion programs and editorials.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's something reported in the regular news segments by either CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I'm fine with those facts and reports.

The opinion reporting by Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc, is just that--opinion. The NYTimes has been caught enough times with inaccuracies that they didn't retract, and at least 1 reporter completely making up stories, that I cannot trust them as a reliable news outlet anymore.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 11:46 PM
Sure, because that's all you meant by throwing his name around.

And I think you're confusing Bush with Obama, and MSNBC for Fox News.

Or, you could be confusing Bush with facts and logic. Not sure yet.

I've confused nothing I can find evidence to prove MSNBC has absolutely no credibility just by who they used to cover the conventions as "objective journalists" and some other stuff.

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/blogger_convention_organizer_said_rnc_protesters_h ad/

While I will acknowledge this source is a blogger, I remember the report on Fox News when I was watching the Republican Convention that Code Pink protesters had gotten in with press passes. The blogger is stating it was MSNBC press passes. I'll try to find a second source.

EnderWiggin
12-23-2008, 12:53 AM
Are you saying I'm a nutcase too, I really don't think they are as out there as you're saying.



While I will acknowledge this source is a blogger


this source is a blogger


blogger


blogger

_EW_

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 01:23 AM
I've confused nothing I can find evidence to prove MSNBC has absolutely no credibility just by who they used to cover the conventions as "objective journalists" and some other stuff.

But Fox News is the absolute voice of logic and reason, with absolutely no bias whatsoever. Right.

FoxNews' reporting in the regular news segments is considered factual. The opinion reporting and commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity are indeed biased to the conservative, but the reporting of the news itself is accurate.

No.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...9/06/bush_wmd/
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0306-21.htm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...18/417347.aspx

Inversely, I got a kick out of this, as it completely contradicts every other source I've seen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

And that's just one case. I'll go look up some more if you'd like.

Q
12-23-2008, 05:15 AM
Point Man said something like this and I about fell over laughing, morbid as that is.
Actually, I would like to chat with Ayers to get an idea of the motivations behind his activities with the Weather movement from the man himself. First and foremost I would like to know from the source if their goal was to kill and maim or merely making a statement using the stupidest methodology imaginable.

Astor
12-23-2008, 06:55 AM
Because he was the guy that the New York Times Interviewed...

Right, because I'm sure Ayers' used his powers of foresight to have his interview printed on the day of the largest terror attack in world history. :dozey:

Achilles
12-23-2008, 11:30 AM
Actually, I would like to chat with Ayers to get an idea of the motivations behind his activities with the Weather movement from the man himself. First and foremost I would like to know from the source if their goal was to kill and maim or merely making a statement using the stupidest methodology imaginable.Wish granted (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97112600)

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 11:49 AM
Wish granted (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97112600)NPR has a well-known http://i43.tinypic.com/2n0r8k0.giflieberalhttp://i43.tinypic.com/2n0r8k0.gif bias, and furthermore...

Q
12-23-2008, 12:08 PM
All true, but then again I'm not Garfield... ;)

Thanks, Achilles. I'll be sure to check it out the next time I'm on a broadband connection.

Achilles
12-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Well, I tried to find an Ayers interviews with FauxNews - okay, I'm lying. No I didn't.

Q
12-23-2008, 12:15 PM
Aside from telling them what to go do with themselves I doubt that he'd talk to them.

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 12:26 PM
Who can blame the man?

Q
12-23-2008, 12:55 PM
Not I. :D

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 01:42 PM
But Fox News is the absolute voice of logic and reason, with absolutely no bias whatsoever. Right.


Look if the accusation of MSNBC trying to deliberately disrupt the Republican Convention is true, it doesn't give MSNBC much in the way of credibility.

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 01:48 PM
Look if the accusation of MSNBC trying to deliberately disrupt the Republican Convention is true, it doesn't give MSNBC much in the way of credibility.

I would argue about your biased "truth", and lack of substantial sources, but you're in the wrong thread. This is the Ayers discussion.

*points to the name of the thread*

^_^

GarfieldJL
12-24-2008, 12:07 AM
Jae all I was pointing out was that I wasn't even talking about Ender in that post.

Anyways, getting back to Ayers, I did find financial ties between Obama and Ayers, I think I posted it somewhere earlier in this topic if not I'll try to find it again.

Achilles
12-24-2008, 04:09 AM
Thanks, Achilles. I'll be sure to check it out the next time I'm on a broadband connection.You're welcome and I hope you do get the chance. My apologies for linking you to something you can't access.

I don't know if there are better resources available, however here is a partial transcript (these are the final minutes of the interview):
Terry Gross: A lot of people have called you an unrepentant terrorist. I think a lot people want to hear you make a full fledged apology for some of your actions with the Weather Underground, such as bombing the Pentagon. So I want you, now that we have heard a lot of your story, to give us your answer to that.

William Ayers: Well you know my answer is that the kind of culture of apology doesn' t appeal to me. If I had something specific to think about apologizing for I might. But it's kind of a blanket statement that what we did was so extreme and so wrong that I ought to just say it was crazy.

I respond by thinking that it would be a good thing if everyone from that era stood up and said 'This is what I did'. Some people were official apologists for that murderous policy in Vietnam. Some people participated in it, some people made the decisions. We opposed it and our opposition took an extreme form. It was never terrorism because it never targeted and never in fact resulted in death or injury to anyone. We were issuing a screaming response to murder and to terror. And I think we were right in that. I don't think everything that we did was brilliant. And as I said, some of the examples of kind of extreme violence and property destruction could be challenged as stupid, backwards, misguided and so on, but I don't think they can be conflated with terrorism, nor should they be. And I think that I don't feel any real regret for taking actions against this war. But again I'd be happy to stand up and measure what I did and what was negative and bad with what I did with what other people did.

Looking backward I don't see who did the right thing and who can claim that this is the proper way to end the war. Clearly we are involved in a war now. Clearly I'm not advocating any kind of action that is illegal and I've been involved in the anti-war movement from the beginning. However, I don't know if any of us know how to stop this war in Iraq. We seem to be stalled. We seem unable to take the next step. And I'm hoping that we can continue to build a movement, an independent movement for peace that can put pressure on the new administration to do the right, to do the right thing.

Terry Gross: Bill Ayers thank you so much for talking with us.

William Ayers: Thank you Terry.

Here (http://www.spockosbrain.com/2008/11/bill-ayers-interview-on-fresh-air) is the link with the transcript I copied above. Yes, it's a blog. :D