So let me get this straight...

[BearChick]

While Obama's "acquaintance" Bill Ayers was bombing his own country, this is what John McCain was doing in 1968.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvcuEqGUwmc

We have a war hero running for president against a guy who associates with people who hate Americans. And the guy who hangs out with people who hate Americans is the guy the media tells us is winning. I swear, the REAL American dream is dying right now.

[baylorles]

... nibble... smack... smack... hmmm... yeah. Tastes bitter in here.

[atxtraveler]

Don't worry BC... most of us will be able to survive for 8 years while the attack on our hard earned dollars hit us. If it gets too bad, I have an open invitation to head back to Sydney for a couple more years.

[The Banterer]

So I guess being a war hero makes one automatically the best choice for President?

To characterize Ayers as hating Americans, is a little bit innaccurate, since the Weather Underground's bombings (as terrible an idea as they were) were never targeted at people, just at structures as a means of protest. I'm not saying their actions were right at all, just that they weren't blowing up buses, or going after people at all really.

When most of this stuff was going on, Barack Obama was still a kid, so to even imply that he approved of their actions is beyond a stretch.

[canuckbear]

Don't worry BC... most of us will be able to survive for 8 years while the attack on our hard earned dollars hit us. If it gets too bad, I have an open invitation to head back to Sydney for a couple more years.



Oh Canada, for me. I have also put in for a transfer to the middle east, pretty good tax incentive. I would venture to say you will see quite a few large businesses moving overseas in the near future.

[atxtraveler]

Oh Canada, for me. I have also put in for a transfer to the middle east, pretty good tax incentive. I would venture to say you will see quite a few large businesses moving overseas in the near future.

So wait... you are telling me that multi-national corporations will look at the Economic policies that Barack has proposed, decide that it does not financially make sense to keep their company based in the US, and then move? Say it ain't so.... say it ain't so....

It cracks me up the arrogance of someone that thinks "robbing" I mean taxing the corporations will make them just fall in, and pay more when places like Dubai, Australia, Singapore, and others are BEGGING them to come and create jobs....

incent businesses to do business here, incent businesses to create jobs here, and disincent people from sucking on the gov't teet and get one of those created jobs.... then SAVE some of the money they earn there for the future.

/rant

[Wacoso]

Cozumeloso's is looking pretty dang good.

[ChipOC]

Don't worry BC... most of us will be able to survive for 8 years while the attack on our hard earned dollars hit us. If it gets too bad, I have an open invitation to head back to Sydney for a couple more years.
I'd bet you'd still make more tailgates than greggor even with a move.

[canuckbear]

So wait... you are telling me that multi-national corporations will look at the Economic policies that Barack has proposed, decide that it does not financially make sense to keep their company based in the US, and then move? Say it ain't so.... say it ain't so....

It cracks me up the arrogance of someone that thinks "robbing" I mean taxing the corporations will make them just fall in, and pay more when places like Dubai, Australia, Singapore, and others are BEGGING them to come and create jobs....

incent businesses to do business here, incent businesses to create jobs here, and disincent people from sucking on the gov't teet and get one of those created jobs.... then SAVE some of the money they earn there for the future.

/rant

That is exactly what I am saying. It has already started.

Love the last paragraph. Why is that so hard to understand for Politicians?

[ChipOC]

This cracked me up.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/ggutfeld_1023/
Gutfeld: Obama Is as Untouchable as a Really Hot Chick (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/ggutfeld_1023/)


By Greg Gutfeld
Host, “Red Eye”
So yesterday, during an ideas meeting, a staffer pitched a story about Sarah Palin, focusing on how little we know about her time in college.
My blood pressure spiked, because naturally her history — or lack thereof — is far less murkier than Barack Obama’s. But it didn’t seem to matter, because no matter what you have against the man, it just doesn’t stick.
Seriously, the man isn’t a presidential candidate, he’s a really hot chick. You know what I mean, right?
You know how when a friend starts dating some girl, let’s say a stripper with top of the line implants, he overlooks everything else. She could be spreading Chlamydia like a Jehovah’s Witness unloading a case of Watchtower pamphlets, and it won’t matter.
Blinded by beauty, he lets her get away with everything, until your buddy is left broken and broke, riddled with disease, sleeping in your garage and convinced a mob boyfriend wants him dead.
I’m not saying Barack is that harmful. I’m just saying that when it comes to the media, he possesses a force field that every hot chick has and no matter what you say or do to convince obsessed fans otherwise, it’s pointless.
Face it: If you found out that your new girlfriend, who happened to be Megan Fox, worked with ACORN, hung around with Bill Ayers and used to do coke back in college, would you care?
Of course you wouldn’t! It’s Megan Fox!
Congratulations. You’re now The New York Times.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

[KellerBear]

This cracked me up.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/ggutfeld_1023/

That was funny...but it worries me that the ex-editor of MAXIM magazine is now working for Fox...shouldn't he be at Playboy or something?

[canuckbear]

Chip,

Nice find. Great analogy.

[atxtraveler]

That is exactly what I am saying. It has already started.

Love the last paragraph. Why is that so hard to understand for Politicians?

I personally would never threaten to move to another country to make a political statement, but if I did really is sad to think how easy it would be for these major corporations to just up and leave.

Look at IBM.... it sold off most of its product line to the People's Republic of Lenovo, so that it could compete against Dell and IBM in those spaces, and is now using the Free Trade Agreement in place with China to sell those goods back to the US at a lower standard and rate. Imagine how quickly that can happen in other industries.

Wake up Barrack... taxing the rich only ****es them off.

[HillCountryBEAR]

great find Chip

[canuckbear]

I wouldn't leave either. The United States of America is the greatest country in the world. However, I believe we are slipping on many areas as a country ie, ethics, morals and plain old common sense.

[atxtraveler]

The United States of America is the greatest country in the world.

The real sad part is that alot of the younger generations do not see this. I know... I am extremely lazy, but I wouldn't be if I were not getting paid to be lazy.

[cowboycwr]

So I guess being a war hero makes one automatically the best choice for President?

To characterize Ayers as hating Americans, is a little bit innaccurate, since the Weather Underground's bombings (as terrible an idea as they were) were never targeted at people, just at structures as a means of protest. I'm not saying their actions were right at all, just that they weren't blowing up buses, or going after people at all really.

When most of this stuff was going on, Barack Obama was still a kid, so to even imply that he approved of their actions is beyond a stretch.

Umm when did police officers not become people???? They may not have targeted people but they did kill and caused plenty of harm, either physical or mental.

And characterizing someone who wanted to destroy the government as hating America sounds like a pretty good description and not inaccurate at all

[cowboycwr]

On the subject of companies leaving it really shouldn't be that hard to figure out. Companies have been doing that for years (even if it has been mainly for cheaper labor) but it seems easy enough to figure out that if the US starts taxing them heavily and another country offers tax breaks..... well I am sure any person with half a brain can figure it out.... Oh crap that leaves out almost every politician and aggy.

[quash]

That was funny...but it worries me that the ex-editor of MAXIM magazine is now working for Fox...shouldn't he be at Playboy or something?

The journalistic standards at Playboy were too high.

[Volunteer]

So I guess being a war hero makes one automatically the best choice for President?

To characterize Ayers as hating Americans, is a little bit innaccurate, since the Weather Underground's bombings (as terrible an idea as they were) were never targeted at people, just at structures as a means of protest. I'm not saying their actions were right at all, just that they weren't blowing up buses, or going after people at all really.

When most of this stuff was going on, Barack Obama was still a kid, so to even imply that he approved of their actions is beyond a stretch.

They were going after people. To suggest otherwise is simply mis-informed. There were people in those buildings. Ask the family of a certain judge if they thought the bombings were only targeted at structures.

[Volunteer]

... nibble... smack... smack... hmmm... yeah. Tastes bitter in here.

Tastes disappointing anyway. It's disappointing to see the country running as fast as it can downhill into a wall. So many Americans. So much complete ignorance.

[BearChick]

... nibble... smack... smack... hmmm... yeah. Tastes bitter in here.

You're pretty much right. It really makes me mad that John McCain is getting run into the ground here by the media, and Barack Obama is pretty much getting a free pass. If it were the other way around, McCain would be getting lit up for having the questionable associations that Obama has. I really hate that we have to defend an American hero vs. a guy who is friends with people who bomb their own country.

Don't worry BC... most of us will be able to survive for 8 years while the attack on our hard earned dollars hit us. If it gets too bad, I have an open invitation to head back to Sydney for a couple more years.

Take me with you. I have always wanted to see Ayers Rock and a koala in person.

So I guess being a war hero makes one automatically the best choice for President?

To characterize Ayers as hating Americans, is a little bit innaccurate, since the Weather Underground's bombings (as terrible an idea as they were) were never targeted at people, just at structures as a means of protest. I'm not saying their actions were right at all, just that they weren't blowing up buses, or going after people at all really.

When most of this stuff was going on, Barack Obama was still a kid, so to even imply that he approved of their actions is beyond a stretch.

Whoa, horsey. Okay... let me break it down for you.

1) No, not necessarily. But I certainly hold people who love America and let their actions speak louder than their words to that end in much higher esteem than people who say...never loved their country (or however Michelle Obama phrased it) until an African-American ran for president.

2) It is NOT at all inaccurate. He BOMBED BUILDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The government of the US represents the people of the US. Ergo... When they bomb the US Embassy in some other country, do you think they do it just because that's the closest building? No, they do it because they hate America and bombing a building of the US government makes a statement to that end.

People work in those buildings. Of course they were going after people. The people who worked to carry out the policies of the US government. Maybe they didn't go after specific people, but there were people targeted nonetheless. What Bill Ayers did is NO different than the terrorists of 9/11. They targeted an American symbol to make a point. The people may have been "collateral damage" but they were there and the buildings were bombed. What's unforgivable to me is that an American bombed buildings of the American government on US soil. For you to even try and defend that as "they weren't going after people" is bizarre to me to say the least.

And as for Barack Obama being a kid, I didn't say he was a part of the attacks. But I do question his judgment. We all pick friends based on common interests, etc. I have had people in my life that I have distanced myself from once I've become aware of things I don't approve of. In a personal example, we're friends with a couple in town who are nice enough, but they're ALWAYS using terrible language. I told Wacoso not long ago that their choice to always use terrible language makes me not want to be around them, even though they're more or less nice people (although they do complain a lot too). If I were Barack Obama, I would have to know what Bill Ayers did. He's well-known in Chicago. Even if he were nice enough today, his past would still make me think about whether or not I would associate with him. Therefore, Obama's judgment comes into question. And this is not his only questionable association.

I personally would never threaten to move to another country to make a political statement, but if I did really is sad to think how easy it would be for these major corporations to just up and leave.

Look at IBM.... it sold off most of its product line to the People's Republic of Lenovo, so that it could compete against Dell and IBM in those spaces, and is now using the Free Trade Agreement in place with China to sell those goods back to the US at a lower standard and rate. Imagine how quickly that can happen in other industries.

Wake up Barrack... taxing the rich only ****es them off.

Bingo.

Cozumeloso's is looking pretty dang good.

Yup.

This cracked me up.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/ggutfeld_1023/


Great find, Chippy.

[Bexar Fan]

Tastes disappointing anyway. It's disappointing to see the country running as fast as it can downhill into a wall. So many Americans. So much complete ignorance.
It could have been prevented.....


http://archive.patriotpost.us/humor/?cartoonid=1648

[The Banterer]

Whoa, horsey. Okay... let me break it down for you.

1) No, not necessarily. But I certainly hold people who love America and let their actions speak louder than their words to that end in much higher esteem than people who say...never loved their country (or however Michelle Obama phrased it) until an African-American ran for president.

2) It is NOT at all inaccurate. He BOMBED BUILDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The government of the US represents the people of the US. Ergo... When they bomb the US Embassy in some other country, do you think they do it just because that's the closest building? No, they do it because they hate America and bombing a building of the US government makes a statement to that end.

People work in those buildings. Of course they were going after people. The people who worked to carry out the policies of the US government. Maybe they didn't go after specific people, but there were people targeted nonetheless. What Bill Ayers did is NO different than the terrorists of 9/11. They targeted an American symbol to make a point. The people may have been "collateral damage" but they were there and the buildings were bombed. What's unforgivable to me is that an American bombed buildings of the American government on US soil. For you to even try and defend that as "they weren't going after people" is bizarre to me to say the least.

And as for Barack Obama being a kid, I didn't say he was a part of the attacks. But I do question his judgment. We all pick friends based on common interests, etc. I have had people in my life that I have distanced myself from once I've become aware of things I don't approve of. In a personal example, we're friends with a couple in town who are nice enough, but they're ALWAYS using terrible language. I told Wacoso not long ago that their choice to always use terrible language makes me not want to be around them, even though they're more or less nice people (although they do complain a lot too). If I were Barack Obama, I would have to know what Bill Ayers did. He's well-known in Chicago. Even if he were nice enough today, his past would still make me think about whether or not I would associate with him. Therefore, Obama's judgment comes into question. And this is not his only questionable association.

Wow, I'm glad you slowed me down to let me know that you wanted to break down your position, thanks.

1. You value people more who prove the love of their nation through service? How is that not implying that those who serve are better Americans? If you want to try and quote Michelle Obama, you should take a minute (literally) and look it up. It's clear that all you want to do is demonize them as much as possible, which is exactly what's wrong with the way our elections are carried out. I'm not saying that you're the only one who does it, there are plenty of Obama freaks who do it to, but it serves nothing but to kill any sort of meaningful discussion.

2. This is terribly flawed logic, but let me make sure I'm not terribly confused. Hating the actions of the US government in a specific foreign policy situation means that one hates the US, which in turn means that one hates the people of the United States. How about this. God hates sin. People are sinners. God hates people.

Your insinuation is offensive to anyone who value's America beyond its government.

How many people died in bombings carried out by the Weather Underground? To argue that their mission (however misguided it was) is comparable to that of terrorists who kill thousands of people is absurd. What they did was absolutely wrong, but they weren't trying to kill a bunch of people, they were trying to start a movement. In their two mast famous bombings, no one was injured or killed.

As far as Obama's relationship with Ayers, lets be clear. Are you calling him a liar? Obama has stated numerous times that Ayers is an aquaintance whose political opinions have no effect on him. I don't see how it is poor judgment to be aquainted with Ayers. His primary connection to him is that they both served on the same board for a grant project.

As far as associations are concerned, I would be far more concerned about McCain's association with Phill Gramm (as an economic advisor) considering his shenanigans and the economic crisis that the country is facing right now.

When it comes down to it though, neither association is very concerning to me at all.

[The Banterer]

Umm when did police officers not become people???? They may not have targeted people but they did kill and caused plenty of harm, either physical or mental.

And characterizing someone who wanted to destroy the government as hating America sounds like a pretty good description and not inaccurate at all

I assume you're referring to the bombing at the SF Police Station where one officer died. It's terrible, but all investigations of it haven't made any connections to the Weather Underground or Ayers.

I just explained my view on disagreeing with the government = hating America in the response to BC, so I'll refer you there, but I don't think you can generalize that someone who hates the actions of the US government hates the United States.

[cowboycwr]

Wow, I'm glad you slowed me down to let me know that you wanted to break down your position, thanks.

1. You value people more who prove the love of their nation through service? How is that not implying that those who serve are better Americans? If you want to try and quote Michelle Obama, you should take a minute (literally) and look it up. It's clear that all you want to do is demonize them as much as possible, which is exactly what's wrong with the way our elections are carried out. I'm not saying that you're the only one who does it, there are plenty of Obama freaks who do it to, but it serves nothing but to kill any sort of meaningful discussion.

2. This is terribly flawed logic, but let me make sure I'm not terribly confused. Hating the actions of the US government in a specific foreign policy situation means that one hates the US, which in turn means that one hates the people of the United States. How about this. God hates sin. People are sinners. God hates people.

Your insinuation is offensive to anyone who value's America beyond its government.

How many people died in bombings carried out by the Weather Underground? To argue that their mission (however misguided it was) is comparable to that of terrorists who kill thousands of people is absurd. What they did was absolutely wrong, but they weren't trying to kill a bunch of people, they were trying to start a movement. In their two mast famous bombings, no one was injured or killed.

As far as Obama's relationship with Ayers, lets be clear. Are you calling him a liar? Obama has stated numerous times that Ayers is an aquaintance whose political opinions have no effect on him. I don't see how it is poor judgment to be aquainted with Ayers. His primary connection to him is that they both served on the same board for a grant project.

As far as associations are concerned, I would be far more concerned about McCain's association with Phill Gramm (as an economic advisor) considering his shenanigans and the economic crisis that the country is facing right now.

When it comes down to it though, neither association is very concerning to me at all.

Look it up they DID kill.

They didn't "just" hate the US government in relation to one foreign policy they wanted to completely topple the US government (and in a domino effect all governments) Seriously look it up. So yes again they did hate the US.

What is wrong with saying those who serve are better Americans? That is a personal belief. When you get down to it isn't that what the election is all about? (Personal beliefs of the individual citizen)

[cowboycwr]

I assume you're referring to the bombing at the SF Police Station where one officer died. It's terrible, but all investigations of it haven't made any connections to the Weather Underground or Ayers.

I just explained my view on disagreeing with the government = hating America in the response to BC, so I'll refer you there, but I don't think you can generalize that someone who hates the actions of the US government hates the United States.

nor have they ruled them out.....

See above for second paragraph.

[cowboycwr]

OH and your line of reasoning about God hating Sinners is wrong and right:

First god does not hate sinners.

2nd using the rules of logic it would actually be correct. An Atheist (SP?) could easily argue that your case proves a good reason why God is not real, doe snot like man, does not care, etc. So again thanks for proving our point.

[The Banterer]

Look it up they DID kill.

They didn't "just" hate the US government in relation to one foreign policy they wanted to completely topple the US government (and in a domino effect all governments) Seriously look it up. So yes again they did hate the US.

What is wrong with saying those who serve are better Americans? That is a personal belief. When you get down to it isn't that what the election is all about? (Personal beliefs of the individual citizen)

I never said there was anything wrong with believing that those who serve are better Americans (though I do think it's a questionable stance), but rather just wanted to figure ou exactly what was being said.

I've done a quick search to try and figure out the death-toll from WU bombings, and thus far I have come up with 3 (WU members who blew themselves up making a bomb) and maybe another (though investigations have never actually tied them to it). In fact, I just found a Chicago Sun-Times article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article) saying that no one was hurt in their attacks. If you have better evidence that I haven't found, feel free to share.

I also have seen anything to suggest that they wanted to take down the entire US government (you seem to be implying that they're anarchists, which I haven't seen at all), so once again if you'd like to enlighten with some sources, that would be great.

[The Banterer]

OH and your line of reasoning about God hating Sinners is wrong and right:

First god does not hate sinners.

2nd using the rules of logic it would actually be correct. An Atheist (SP?) could easily argue that your case proves a good reason why God is not real, doe snot like man, does not care, etc. So again thanks for proving our point.

I know that God doesn't hate sinners. I was using it as an example as to why BC's logic was unsound.

[SoTex]

Cozumeloso's is looking pretty dang good.

I'll be your rep!

[The Banterer]

nor have they ruled them out.....

See above for second paragraph.

They haven't ruled George W. Bush out either.

[SoTex]

I have to say that I am very surprised that this is not a runaway election with McCain at 80%. Of course, as soon as I type that I realize that this is the American public we're talking about.

[cowboycwr]

I know that God doesn't hate sinners. I was using it as an example as to why BC's logic was unsound.

but using the rules of logic isn't that statement actually correct (throwing out what we know about God)?

[cowboycwr]

I never said there was anything wrong with believing that those who serve are better Americans (though I do think it's a questionable stance), but rather just wanted to figure ou exactly what was being said.

I've done a quick search to try and figure out the death-toll from WU bombings, and thus far I have come up with 3 (WU members who blew themselves up making a bomb) and maybe another (though investigations have never actually tied them to it). In fact, I just found a Chicago Sun-Times article (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article) saying that no one was hurt in their attacks. If you have better evidence that I haven't found, feel free to share.

I also have seen anything to suggest that they wanted to take down the entire US government (you seem to be implying that they're anarchists, which I haven't seen at all), so once again if you'd like to enlighten with some sources, that would be great.


From Wikipedia ( I know not really the best source but) they wanted to create a classless world while destroying US Imperialism. Maybe I am just reading to much into that but it sure sounds like destroy the US and either set up a worldwide communism (the true type not the USSR type) or no government (utopian society)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

There was a documentary made about them that also claimed they wanted to overthrow the government.

http://www.upstatefilms.org/weather/main.html

and I am sure I could find others and will if you want but right now I am going home. To much work....

[The Banterer]

but using the rules of logic isn't that statement actually correct (throwing out what we know about God)?

Logically it is valid (logically works), but it is not sound (true).

[nein51]

They bombed the home of a Federal (or State, I forget which) judge, when his wife and infant son were home. So, they didnt kill anyone, just tried and failed...so they werent even terribly good terrorists. Frankly, arguing that "well, they didnt kill anyone" sure seems hollow. It is quite clear they were a domestic terrorist organization with which he has been affiliated to some extent.

Personally, I dont think that disqualifies him from being President. I like some of you very much but I dont know everything you have ever done.

[Texas Golfer]

So I guess being a war hero makes one automatically the best choice for President?

To characterize Ayers as hating Americans, is a little bit innaccurate, since the Weather Underground's bombings (as terrible an idea as they were) were never targeted at people, just at structures as a means of protest. I'm not saying their actions were right at all, just that they weren't blowing up buses, or going after people at all really.

When most of this stuff was going on, Barack Obama was still a kid, so to even imply that he approved of their actions is beyond a stretch.

Although people may not have been their targets, people died in their explosions.

[Texas Golfer]

That was funny...but it worries me that the ex-editor of MAXIM magazine is now working for Fox...shouldn't he be at Playboy or something?

Not only is it funny, it's true.

[Texas Golfer]

You're pretty much right. It really makes me mad that John McCain is getting run into the ground here by the media, and Barack Obama is pretty much getting a free pass. If it were the other way around, McCain would be getting lit up for having the questionable associations that Obama has. I really hate that we have to defend an American hero vs. a guy who is friends with people who bomb their own country.

McCain can't take it personally, nor can Palin. It goes with having the (R) after their names. The mainstream media and Hollywood have been extremely liberal for decades and they used to try to hide it. They no longer are making that attempt.

If Obama/Biden were the Republicans and McCain/Palin the Democrats, Obama/Biden would be getting their vitriol.

So, it doesn't make a difference that McCain is a war hero while Obama was a doper and socializes with domestic terrorists and anti-American pastors. McCain has the (R) and Obama has the (D). Enough said.

[quash]

I have to say that I am very surprised that this is not a runaway election with McCain at 80%. Of course, as soon as I type that I realize that this is the American public we're talking about.

Is that hate speech towards Americans? I hadn't pegged you as a liberal...

[SoTex]

A vet that has served in U.S. government for YEARS v. one that has been labeled a senator for only 146 days prior to putting together a committee to research him being president. For Obama it's all about HIM winning and HIM being tested after HE wins. McCain has more of a servant's heart than Obama. Obama is so self-centered but we're too stupid to see it.

[Bexar Fan]

McCain has the (R) and Obama has the (L). Enough said.
Obama is a Libertarian? Who knew?

[BearChick]

If I want to argue in circles, I'll go hang out with BBL. (Wait, I did that last night.)

The fact is I hate discussing issues with people who have no stand other than to play devil's advocate. There have been many people on these boards who think it's fun to do just that. I am not one of them. I'll be honest and give you my side and discuss what I'm thinking. But it's not fun or intellectually stimulating for me to discuss issues with someone who is only interested in the "gotcha" factor and pulling out loopholes to discussions, which is what you do. Therefore, I'm just going to sit the rest of this one out with you. You're not debating position, you're debating from a point of sheer contrarianism. I used to think that was fun too, but I'm in a place now where I'd rather discuss real points of view with real folks. Carry on with the others. I'll do the same.

[ChipOC]

Wow, I'm glad you slowed me down to let me know that you wanted to break down your position, thanks.

1. You value people more who prove the love of their nation through service? How is that not implying that those who serve are better Americans? If you want to try and quote Michelle Obama, you should take a minute (literally) and look it up. It's clear that all you want to do is demonize them as much as possible, which is exactly what's wrong with the way our elections are carried out. I'm not saying that you're the only one who does it, there are plenty of Obama freaks who do it to, but it serves nothing but to kill any sort of meaningful discussion.

2. This is terribly flawed logic, but let me make sure I'm not terribly confused. Hating the actions of the US government in a specific foreign policy situation means that one hates the US, which in turn means that one hates the people of the United States. How about this. God hates sin. People are sinners. God hates people.

Your insinuation is offensive to anyone who value's America beyond its government.

How many people died in bombings carried out by the Weather Underground? To argue that their mission (however misguided it was) is comparable to that of terrorists who kill thousands of people is absurd. What they did was absolutely wrong, but they weren't trying to kill a bunch of people, they were trying to start a movement. In their two mast famous bombings, no one was injured or killed.

As far as Obama's relationship with Ayers, lets be clear. Are you calling him a liar? Obama has stated numerous times that Ayers is an aquaintance whose political opinions have no effect on him. I don't see how it is poor judgment to be aquainted with Ayers. His primary connection to him is that they both served on the same board for a grant project.

As far as associations are concerned, I would be far more concerned about McCain's association with Phill Gramm (as an economic advisor) considering his shenanigans and the economic crisis that the country is facing right now.

When it comes down to it though, neither association is very concerning to me at all.
When choosing a president, damn right I want someone with a servant's heart. Otherwise, they probably just want the power.

As for aquaintance, don't you measure people by whom they associate? Bombing buildings is a terrorist act, that is a fact. It should raise a red flag, but you're more concerned with Phil Gramm? Please.

[The Banterer]

If I want to argue in circles, I'll go hang out with BBL. (Wait, I did that last night.)

The fact is I hate discussing issues with people who have no stand other than to play devil's advocate. There have been many people on these boards who think it's fun to do just that. I am not one of them. I'll be honest and give you my side and discuss what I'm thinking. But it's not fun or intellectually stimulating for me to discuss issues with someone who is only interested in the "gotcha" factor and pulling out loopholes to discussions, which is what you do. Therefore, I'm just going to sit the rest of this one out with you. You're not debating position, you're debating from a point of sheer contrarianism. I used to think that was fun too, but I'm in a place now where I'd rather discuss real points of view with real folks. Carry on with the others. I'll do the same.

Just because I'm not an Obama supporter doesn't mean that I can't genuinely defend the guy from what I feel is a baseless accusation. If the majority here were Obama supporters and making similar attacks on McCain's character, I would defend him comparably (I do it all the time in my govt. class).

I'm sorry if I came off as a dick in my last post (I wasn't in a great mood when I wrote it; had taken a spill on my bike on my way home and was still smarting a little bit). When I argue, I try to form my arguments in a way that an objective supporter would see my position as superior, it's how I learned to argue (with someone deciding who won and lost), and I can understand how it is offputting at times.

Anyway, here's my straight up opinion on this topic. I don't think Ayers is a terrorist in the same sense as Bin Laden, McVeigh, the PLO, etc. He was basically an ******* who took his political message too far, and showed terrible judgment in doing. Now he's a college professor and participant in philanthropic organizations, hardly someone who strikes fear in anyone's heart, and he's given no indication that he wants to participate in any more bombing. Also, I don't think Obama's relationship with him is meaningful at all. Politicians rub shoulders with lots of people, and I haven't heard anything that would make me think that he's anything more than an acquaintance to Obama.

I think that this whole issue is just a garden variety personal attack, so basically par for the course for the current American election situation. I think attacks like this are bad for democracy, so I actually do feel quite strongly about these sorts of attacks.

[The Banterer]

When choosing a president, damn right I want someone with a servant's heart. Otherwise, they probably just want the power.

As for aquaintance, don't you measure people by whom they associate? Bombing buildings is a terrorist act, that is a fact. It should raise a red flag, but you're more concerned with Phil Gramm? Please.

I think Phil Gramm could have much more of an influence on a McCain administration that Ayers could have on an Obama administration.

I'm not sure that you can characterize everyone who serves in the military as having a servant's heart. If he had such a servant's heart, then maybe he would refuse his salary as a senator (considering it's a drop in the bucket to his net worth). It's hard for me to thing of any big name politician as a servant, given the the complete ridiculousness that seems to have become the norm in our elected government.

[nein51]

Banterer, Im not sure that you (or I) are old enough to understand the impact of Ayers group, along with many others at the time.

I will say there is no doubt they were worse than McVeigh, he just managed to kill a lot more people.

For the record, I dont think Ayers is nearly as scary as his wife.

[GigaBear]

If I want to argue in circles, I'll go hang out with BBL. (Wait, I did that last night.)

The fact is I hate discussing issues with people who have no stand other than to play devil's advocate. There have been many people on these boards who think it's fun to do just that. I am not one of them. I'll be honest and give you my side and discuss what I'm thinking. But it's not fun or intellectually stimulating for me to discuss issues with someone who is only interested in the "gotcha" factor and pulling out loopholes to discussions, which is what you do. Therefore, I'm just going to sit the rest of this one out with you. You're not debating position, you're debating from a point of sheer contrarianism. I used to think that was fun too, but I'm in a place now where I'd rather discuss real points of view with real folks. Carry on with the others. I'll do the same.


BC, I've been sitting out all of the political discussions lately after what happened last time, but I have to say that I agree with Banterer here and see his point completely. As I hope everyone here knows by now, I am 100% supporting McCain over Obama (not that I like McCain, just that Obama's tax policies are going to screw us all....but that's a whole other story). With that being said, though, I think it is horribly unfair to lump Ayers with Obama, and I don't think that being a war hero qualifies anyone to be president. If McCain were running against a more-qualified candidate than Obama who had fiscal policies that I agreed with, I would not vote for McCain because he was a war hero. Truthfully, it doesn't really weigh on my mind at all in the general election, and I think that is a dangerous litmus test for people to use.


I think Ayers was a horrible person and if there WAS found to be a legitimate link between Obama and Ayers, I would agree that it was a big deal. As it may be, they happened to be at the same place at the same time---hardly something worth noting.


Politics in general is a complete load of horse****. The more I see, the more I get ****ed off at the entire system and the monkeys we have in power from top to bottom. Hearing these *******es talk out of their *** about everything under the sun, promising this, denouncing that, villainizing each other....it's just stupid. The things that are dug up as "problems" on both sides of the aisle just baffle me.


I will be honest though...I have never been as disappointed in the American people as a whole than with the issue of Obama being called a Muslim, an arab, etc etc etc. It makes it disgustingly obvious that an incredible number of U.S. Americans (had to say it) are just absolute retards, not to mention bigots. Sadly enough, a large number of people I know well (even family) are included in that.

[KellerBear]

BC, I've been sitting out all of the political discussions lately after what happened last time, but I have to say that I agree with Banterer here and see his point completely. As I hope everyone here knows by now, I am 100% supporting McCain over Obama (not that I like McCain, just that Obama's tax policies are going to screw us all....but that's a whole other story). With that being said, though, I think it is horribly unfair to lump Ayers with Obama, and I don't think that being a war hero qualifies anyone to be president. If McCain were running against a more-qualified candidate than Obama who had fiscal policies that I agreed with, I would not vote for McCain because he was a war hero. Truthfully, it doesn't really weigh on my mind at all in the general election, and I think that is a dangerous litmus test for people to use.


I think Ayers was a horrible person and if there WAS found to be a legitimate link between Obama and Ayers, I would agree that it was a big deal. As it may be, they happened to be at the same place at the same time---hardly something worth noting.


Politics in general is a complete load of horse****. The more I see, the more I get ****ed off at the entire system and the monkeys we have in power from top to bottom. Hearing these *******es talk out of their *** about everything under the sun, promising this, denouncing that, villainizing each other....it's just stupid. The things that are dug up as "problems" on both sides of the aisle just baffle me.


I will be honest though...I have never been as disappointed in the American people as a whole than with the issue of Obama being called a Muslim, an arab, etc etc etc. It makes it disgustingly obvious that an incredible number of U.S. Americans (had to say it) are just absolute retards, not to mention bigots.

I agree!

[ChipOC]

I think Ayers was a horrible person and if there WAS found to be a legitimate link between Obama and Ayers, I would agree that it was a big deal. As it may be, they happened to be at the same place at the same time---hardly something worth noting.

Ayers hosted an Obama fundraiser when he was running for state office. That means they were hardly at the same place at the same time. That sound legitimate?

[The Banterer]

Ayers hosted an Obama fundraiser when he was running for state office. That means they were hardly at the same place at the same time. That sound legitimate?

All that means is that Ayers is an Obama fan with enough influence among his peers that he could make a difference raising funds. If I had a bunch of wealthy cohorts, I would've held a Bob Barr fundraiser (or more likely Ron Paul, given that fundraisers typically occur early in a campaign). That doesn't mean that he would be ideologically like me, but rather just I thought he was a good choice for President.

This whole issue would be like saying that McCain must be ideologically similar to John Hagee, since Hagee is an open McCain supporter. It's an illogical argument regardless of which candidate it's about.

[GigaBear]

Ayers hosted an Obama fundraiser when he was running for state office. That means they were hardly at the same place at the same time. That sound legitimate?


This whole issue would be like saying that McCain must be ideologically similar to John Hagee, since Hagee is an open McCain supporter. It's an illogical argument regardless of which candidate it's about.


Better than I could've said it.




The key is---"Ayers hosted....".



Ayers was the initiator. Ayers did it of his own volition. Had Obama said "hey, Billy, how 'bout we throw a shindig to raise me some monies", well, that might be a bit different.

[ChipOC]

All that means is that Ayers is an Obama fan with enough influence among his peers that he could make a difference raising funds. If I had a bunch of wealthy cohorts, I would've held a Bob Barr fundraiser (or more likely Ron Paul, given that fundraisers typically occur early in a campaign). That doesn't mean that he would be ideologically like me, but rather just I thought he was a good choice for President.

This whole issue would be like saying that McCain must be ideologically similar to John Hagee, since Hagee is an open McCain supporter. It's an illogical argument regardless of which candidate it's about.
Except this was for State Senator before he'd ever run for office. They had served on a board together and worked in the community together.

[nein51]

It's undeniable that there is some link. It's silly to think otherwise. I still fail to see how that is a disqualifier. I am damn sure not voting for Obama, he has virtually no experience, he is quite clearly a socialist and his tax plan and health plan are going to put us in a serious economic hardship or (hopefully) they wont happen at all, in which case he will be a liar.

There isnt a politician on earth clean enough to not have had association with someone unseemly. That does not excuse the fact that there is a clear link between them and to say they knew each other in passing is probably 1/100th of an inch from a bald face lie. Even still I fail to see how, in this election, his association 10X removed with any one person is more important than things like; taxes, health care, government spending, etc.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him, this one is just sort of silly.

[Texas Golfer]

Except this was for State Senator before he'd ever run for office. They had served on a board together and worked in the community together.

It was not only a fundraiser but it was where Obama launched his political career. They are also neighbors and have been on several boards and committees together.

I would agree that this connection would be insignificant had Ayers said that he regretted his actions and apologized to the families of those he injured or worse. But, not only has he not done so, he stated not too very long ago that he did not regret his actions and that the only regret he had was that he had not done more.

This is what makes the connection significant.

[baylorles]

Dadgum, does moderator privileges come with every membership round here?

Moderators : 8
BigBearFan, JudgeBaylor, Moderator, Doug, Limnos, Wacoso, GigaBear, BearChick

[LIQRinPU]

Good original post Bearchick. How anyone can defend Ayers is beyond me.

[The Banterer]

Except this was for State Senator before he'd ever run for office. They had served on a board together and worked in the community together.

I don't see how that changes anything. They live in the same community, so it makes sense that if someone who Ayers looks upon well is running for office, he will support him.

[GigaBear]

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him, this one is just sort of silly.



Exactly. And that's why I'm so disappointed in all those people who continue to spew the "ARAB!" and "MUSLIM!" vitriol. To ANY conservative, you have a whole host of reasons NOT to vote for him---why FALSELY attack his character? Why not garner respect for YOUR positions by defending them and showing how his are stupid instead of trying to make him out to be something he's not---and failing miserably (not to mention making yourself look incredibly stupid) at it.

[The Banterer]

It was not only a fundraiser but it was where Obama launched his political career. They are also neighbors and have been on several boards and committees together.

I would agree that this connection would be insignificant had Ayers said that he regretted his actions and apologized to the families of those he injured or worse. But, not only has he not done so, he stated not too very long ago that he did not regret his actions and that the only regret he had was that he had not done more.

This is what makes the connection significant.

What families do you suggest that he apologize to. No one was killed or injured in their actions. I'm not saying that makes anything he did right at all, just that to portray him as a murderer would fallacious.

The quote you're referencing isn't him saying that he wished they had bombed more, but rather he wishes that he whole anti-war movement had been more active. He also explains in the conversation that he didn't regret it because they didn't target people. He has openly condemned those who do before Obama was even remotely in the national picture.

[Volunteer]

How many people died in bombings carried out by the Weather Underground? To argue that their mission (however misguided it was) is comparable to that of terrorists who kill thousands of people is absurd. What they did was absolutely wrong, but they weren't trying to kill a bunch of people, they were trying to start a movement. In their two mast famous bombings, no one was injured or killed.



I believe you are completely missing the point. The fact that few people were injured has absolutely nothing to do with intent. The intent of the weathermen was to do damage. The fact that few people were injured is purely blind luck. Intent is a legally sound principal. And your statement that they weren't trying to kill a bunch of people is not accurate. They goal was to overthrow the government by any means necessary - up to and including violence. To believe that they didn't know their actions might very well end up in the death of someone is terribly naive.



Anyway, here's my straight up opinion on this topic. I don't think Ayers is a terrorist in the same sense as Bin Laden, McVeigh, the PLO, etc. He was basically an ******* who took his political message too far, and showed terrible judgment in doing. Really? Now we are rating terrorists? Who was worse? Bin Laden, McVeigh or Arafat? To suggest that Ayers was basically a (insert censored word) who took his political message too far is akin to saying that the unabomber was just some guy who thought technology sucked and took his opinion too far. Ayers is a terrorist - plain and simple. Whether he rates in the top 10 or not is inconsequential.

Now he's a college professor and participant in philanthropic organizations, hardly someone who strikes fear in anyone's heart, and he's given no indication that he wants to participate in any more bombing. The problem is he is completely unrepentant. The words, "I acted inappropriately and I'm sorry" have never passed his lips. In fact his statement is that he wishes he had done more.

Also, I don't think Obama's relationship with him is meaningful at all. Politicians rub shoulders with lots of people, and I haven't heard anything that would make me think that he's anything more than an acquaintance to Obama.

What form would a relationship have to take before you cared? If McCain sat on boards with an unrepentant KKK member would you think it inappropriate? What about if he allowed the KKK guy to host a fundraiser on his behalf? A fundraiser he attended.


I think that this whole issue is just a garden variety personal attack, so basically par for the course for the current American election situation. I think attacks like this are bad for democracy, so I actually do feel quite strongly about these sorts of attacks. It's too bad you don't feel as strongly about character. What happened in history does matter. A persons choices do matter. Frankly the fact that Obama has served on boards with Ayers really isn't that big of a deal because Obama didn't choose Ayers to be a part of any board. What does matter is that Obama did, in fact, agree to let Ayers hold a fundraiser in the Ayers home that launched Obama's political career. Obama made this choice. So no, it's not a garden variety personal attack, it provides a direct correlation to Obama's judgement. Maybe you don't care about his judgement, but many of us do.




I think Ayers was a horrible person and if there WAS found to be a legitimate link between Obama and Ayers, I would agree that it was a big deal. As it may be, they happened to be at the same place at the same time---hardly something worth noting.

The link is the fundraiser. Approved and accepted by Obama. The joint service on boards is not germane, IMO, to the issue.




IMO the Ayers issue is relevant.

[Volunteer]

What families do you suggest that he apologize to. No one was killed or injured in their actions. I'm not saying that makes anything he did right at all, just that to portray him as a murderer would fallacious.

The quote you're referencing isn't him saying that he wished they had bombed more, but rather he wishes that he whole anti-war movement had been more active. He also explains in the conversation that he didn't regret it because they didn't target people. He has openly condemned those who do before Obama was even remotely in the national picture.

Maybe he could start with this guy...... And you're wrong on Ayers' intent.

John M. Murtagh
Fire in the Night
The Weathermen tried to kill my family.
30 April 2008
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.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. 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.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn’t have to rent a limo for the senior prom: the NYPD did the driving. We all made the best of the odd new life that had been thrust upon us, but for years, the sound of a fire truck’s siren made my stomach knot and my heart race. In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn’t fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own nine-year-old John Murtagh into bed.

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.

As the association between Obama and Ayers came to light, it would have helped the senator a little if his friend had at least shown some remorse. But listen to Ayers interviewed in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, of all days: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Translation: “We meant to kill that judge and his family, not just damage the porch.” When asked by the Times if he would do it all again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”
Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.”

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.

John M. Murtagh is a practicing attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies, and a member of the city council in Yonkers, New York, where he resides with his wife and two sons.



The quote in "blue" nails it.

[The Banterer]

Maybe he could start with this guy...... And you're wrong on Ayers' intent.



The quote in "blue" nails it.

That quote in red is totally ubsubstantiated BS by a partisan hack. Ayers has explained what he meant with that statement (which is where I came up with my argument). If you believe that someone other than Ayers has a better insight on Ayers' mind, then fine, you believe in psychics, but it doesn't make any of it true.

He has stated that his intent was never to kill. You say that his intent was. I think he is more credible on what his intent was. You say that he is a terrorist like Bin Laden etc, while he has publicly condemmed those whose intention is to kill. In fact, he has apologized to some people injured in one of their out of control protests/riots.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong when your views are substantiated by nothing more than conjecture, while I am using Ayers himself as a source.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that Ayers tried to kill people in the late 60s and early 70s, then feel free to share it.

As for your question of what their relationship would need to be for me to be concerned. I think that If they were close friends, or if Obama considered him a mentor or adviser at all, then that could be cause for concern. However, that isn't their relationship, and even if it were, to argue that Ayers is the same man he was 40 years ago seems like a false premise.

As far as the idea that the Weather Underground's goal was to totally dismantle the US government, I've read nothing that backs that up. The general consensus of their position from what I've read is that they wanted to bring an end to US imperialism (which I don't think would be such a bad idea, though for different reasons than the WU) and to encourage a Marxist world society. To say that a desire to end US imperialism is equal to a desire to end the US is simply false.

[atxtraveler]

He has stated that his intent was never to kill. You say that his intent was. I think he is more credible on what his intent was. You say that he is a terrorist like Bin Laden etc, while he has publicly condemmed those whose intention is to kill. In fact, he has apologized to some people injured in one of their out of control protests/riots.

May you never serve on a jury. EVERY guilty person says they are innocent.

[The Banterer]

May you never serve on a jury. EVERY guilty person says they are innocent.

Well, when there's no evidence to the contrary (regarding his intent), I err on the side of innocence. I would likewise hope that those who presume guilty would not find their place on a jury.

[atxtraveler]

Exactly why I never miss a tailgate due to jury duty.

[LIQRinPU]

I for one certainly believe everything Ayers says. The man has proven to be honorable by setting bombs and running away.

[Texas Golfer]

Exactly. And that's why I'm so disappointed in all those people who continue to spew the "ARAB!" and "MUSLIM!" vitriol. To ANY conservative, you have a whole host of reasons NOT to vote for him---why FALSELY attack his character? Why not garner respect for YOUR positions by defending them and showing how his are stupid instead of trying to make him out to be something he's not---and failing miserably (not to mention making yourself look incredibly stupid) at it.

The numbers support that no candidate has been more personally smeared than has Palin. "The Down Syndrome Baby is her daughter's." "Palin tried to ban books." "She's part of a secession party." And there are so many more. They're ALL lies but nobody seems to care...not even you.

[Texas Golfer]

What families do you suggest that he apologize to. No one was killed or injured in their actions. I'm not saying that makes anything he did right at all, just that to portray him as a murderer would fallacious.

The quote you're referencing isn't him saying that he wished they had bombed more, but rather he wishes that he whole anti-war movement had been more active. He also explains in the conversation that he didn't regret it because they didn't target people. He has openly condemned those who do before Obama was even remotely in the national picture.

The reports show that a police officer died when they bombed the NYC police HQ.

Although, the targets were the significance of the buildings, The Pentagon, The Capitol, the NYPD HQ, all were occupied. Since the landmarks were the targets and the people inside were collateral damage, you're saying it's okay?

[Texas Golfer]

That quote in red is totally ubsubstantiated BS by a partisan hack. Ayers has explained what he meant with that statement (which is where I came up with my argument). If you believe that someone other than Ayers has a better insight on Ayers' mind, then fine, you believe in psychics, but it doesn't make any of it true.

He has stated that his intent was never to kill. You say that his intent was. I think he is more credible on what his intent was. You say that he is a terrorist like Bin Laden etc, while he has publicly condemmed those whose intention is to kill. In fact, he has apologized to some people injured in one of their out of control protests/riots.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong when your views are substantiated by nothing more than conjecture, while I am using Ayers himself as a source.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that Ayers tried to kill people in the late 60s and early 70s, then feel free to share it.

As for your question of what their relationship would need to be for me to be concerned. I think that If they were close friends, or if Obama considered him a mentor or adviser at all, then that could be cause for concern. However, that isn't their relationship, and even if it were, to argue that Ayers is the same man he was 40 years ago seems like a false premise.

As far as the idea that the Weather Underground's goal was to totally dismantle the US government, I've read nothing that backs that up. The general consensus of their position from what I've read is that they wanted to bring an end to US imperialism (which I don't think would be such a bad idea, though for different reasons than the WU) and to encourage a Marxist world society. To say that a desire to end US imperialism is equal to a desire to end the US is simply false.

And we know that Ayers and Obama would never lie to improve their positions and standings. :rolleyes:

[Texas Golfer]

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had the roles had been reversed (if these were McCain's associations), the media and the Democrats would have been all over the Ayers association as well as Obama's other radical associations (Wright, Pleger, Farrachan, Resko, etc).

[The Banterer]

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had the roles had been reversed (if these were McCain's associations), the media and the Democrats would have been all over the Ayers association as well as Obama's other radical associations (Wright, Pleger, Farrachan, Resko, etc).

That doesn't make it right.

As far as the Weather Underground is concerned, I've still yet to see anything that ties them to bombings which resulted in casualties. When I searched for NYPD bombing, all of the information I found (which was from sites going after them aggressively) made no mention of casualties. In fact, one site contained scans of newspaper clippings, and all the bombings I saw occurred in the wee hours of the morning, which would support the idea that their intention was never to kill people.

I'm also curious what numbers you're referring to that show that Palin has been smeared more than anyone else. None of the candidates have really taken a beating in the MSM (though both sides are convinced that their candidate is getting the shaft), and from a totally anecdotal perspective, the smears against Obama seem to be more generally hateful than anything I've heard against Palin. The three examples you give were quickly debunked and I haven't heard much about them since. Some of the other criticisms against her (taking travel per diem when working at home, troopergate, shopping spree) have been based on fact, regardless of how important (or unimportant) one might think they are.

[quash]

May you never serve on a jury. EVERY guilty person says they are innocent.
May you never serve on a jury: every accused is presumed innocent.


I'm serious, you need to let the court know at every trial just how you feel, that you are unable to follow the law and presume the accused innocent, that you will not hold the state to their burden to prove an accused is guilty.

[quash]

I remember catching crap like this for supporting Ron Paul.

RP has some big issues I agree with, and a couple I don't. It was hard to defend him on the issues where I didn't really agree with him.

But what really ****ed me off was having to deal with people who raised the issue of who else in the country supported RP: Aryan Nation kooks, a brothel owner in Nevada, etc. They viewed RP as somebody who might get the govt off their backs, and their public support cost RP some negative PR.

Bottom line for me on Ayers: way too insignificant to bother me. I have much better reasons not to vote for Obama than this. Anyone who has Ayers at the top of their list of reasons isn't paying attention.

[atxtraveler]

May you never serve on a jury: every accused is presumed innocent.


I'm serious, you need to let the court know at every trial just how you feel, that you are unable to follow the law and presume the accused innocent, that you will not hold the state to their burden to prove an accused is guilty.

You have no worry here. I have.

[Volunteer]

That quote in red is totally ubsubstantiated BS by a partisan hack.

No it's not. It's from someone who was in the house when the bombs exploded. I think that's called an eye witness.

Ayers has explained what he meant with that statement (which is where I came up with my argument). If you believe that someone other than Ayers has a better insight on Ayers' mind, then fine, you believe in psychics, but it doesn't make any of it true.

No I don't believe in psychics. I do, however, believe in reality. They set bombs in public places. People inhabit public places. People can get killed when a bomb explodes. It's really pretty simple.

He has stated that his intent was never to kill. You say that his intent was. I think he is more credible on what his intent was. Wow! I hope if anyone I know is charged with an offense, you're on the jury. Are you interested in some land in Florida?:001_cool:

You say that he is a terrorist like Bin Laden etc, while he has publicly condemmed those whose intention is to kill. In fact, he has apologized to some people injured in one of their out of control protests/riots. He has not apologized for his actions.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong when your views are substantiated by nothing more than conjecture, while I am using Ayers himself as a source.

You are wrong. You have provided nothing that suggests that Ayers wasn't willing to kill people. I can't imagine how you could possibly believe that a person who is willing to set and detonate bombs in a public place would not be willing to kill people. It's so counter-intuitive that it is laughable.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that Ayers tried to kill people in the late 60s and early 70s, then feel free to share it. Geez. He set and detonated bombs. What more do you need? A signed confession. Here's a news flash - crooks don't admit guilt. Sure they break down on the witness stand on TV, but not in real life. You have to look at the evidence. Armed with the evidence herein I could get life for Mr. Ayers.

As for your question of what their relationship would need to be for me to be concerned. I think that If they were close friends, or if Obama considered him a mentor or adviser at all, then that could be cause for concern. However, that isn't their relationship, and even if it were, to argue that Ayers is the same man he was 40 years ago seems like a false premise. So, therefore, your position is that 40 years is the statute of limitations. Associating with anyone, as long as it has been 40 years since their criminal act, is A-OK. Maybe Obama should call Sirhan Sirhan and invite him over for dinner.

As far as the idea that the Weather Underground's goal was to totally dismantle the US government, I've read nothing that backs that up. The general consensus of their position from what I've read is that they wanted to bring an end to US imperialism (which I don't think would be such a bad idea, though for different reasons than the WU) and to encourage a Marxist world society. To say that a desire to end US imperialism is equal to a desire to end the US is simply false.

A very bold statement: "To say that a desire to end US imperialism is equal to a desire to end the US is simply false". Bold, but completely incorrect. Here are a couple of links about the Weathermen's desire to overthrow the government. Just Google "Weatherman Overthrow Government. You'll get about 100 other confirmations.

http://independent.joiningthedots.tv/main.aspx?content=563592887297

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32542.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Weather-Underground-Organization



Here's info from the NY Times.
No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

By DINITIA SMITH
Published: September 11, 2001
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.

''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''

But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked.

''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. ''It's true as I remember it.''

Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted.

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''

He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.

In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.

Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

[Volunteer]

Bottom line for me on Ayers: way too insignificant to bother me. I have much better reasons not to vote for Obama than this. Anyone who has Ayers at the top of their list of reasons isn't paying attention.


You're right, there are plenty of reasons to not vote for Obama. However, the Ayers issue is important because it goes to his character and judgement. As I said earlier it's not serving on the same boards that bother me, it's the fundraiser held in Ayers house that launched Obama's campaign that is unacceptable. I wouldn't dream of visiting the house of an ex-KKK guy for any reason. I think I can hold a presidential candidate to the same standard.

[quash]

I think Barry Goldwater offered the best defense of the Weathermen: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"

[nein51]

I think Barry Goldwater offered the best defense of the Weathermen: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"
Which is fine if you believe they were fighting for liberty but you almost have to be off your damn rocker to believe that line of crap.