[OldManMac]

Since some of you want to play guilt by association with Obama being connected to Ayers (when Obama was 8 years old), how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G8C4Y93Ugk

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Since some of you want to play guilt by association with Obama being connected to Ayers (when Obama was 8 years old), how about this?]

Obama was eight years old when a known, unrepentant terrorist held a political coming out party for him in his home as part of a wider mentoring he did for Obama before he was thrust into political office? Wow, he really did start young.

But of course the fallacy in the "guilt by association" tack is actually that these are RELATIONSHIPS he had with people who are undeniable America haters. Not just one guy, but a pattern of it. Not just someone who knew someone who might have belonged to a group which some of it's members might have held views not shared by the rest. But a KNOWN TERRORIST who BOMBED Americans who Obama was a guest in his home and shared political associations with. This is a DIRECT relationship with a DIRECT terrorist.

The best Begala can come up with is that McCain was in a group, and SOME of it's members held extreme views., so what you have is illogical moral equivalency. Guilt by association? That's exactly what Obama has been doing in regards to the failed F&F's he got politically rich off of. McCain had little to do with it, yet because he HAS been for some deregulation (but fought for other regulations, like on R&R) it's his fault. :lol

I'm sorry, but there is REAL guilt here in who Obama has a pattern of associating with. There's a reason why Obama chooses to associate with left-wing radicals. If you really think that you are going to scare people with the sort of tripe Begala is spewing, go for it. Just wait for the commericals with Ayers standing on the flag and Rev. Wright damning America. You're taking a knife to a gunfight.

[hyteckit]

Guilty by association?

McCain - Keating Five

[RAILhead]

You mean where McCain was cleared, and where the Ethic Committee stated McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

or that yet another Vaaaast Riiiiiight Wiiiiing Coooonspiracyyyyyy... ?

[hyteckit]

McCain - Palling around with criminals.

One must question McCain's judgement.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

McCain - Palling around with criminals.

One must question McCain's judgement.

Again..if you want to go there, fine.

Keating Vs. Rezko and Obama's propery gift?

Let the games begin! Again, Obama is going to be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[hyteckit]

McCain - Palling with extremist, racist, and anti-semite group US Council for World Freedom

[hyteckit]

Sarah Palin - Sleeping with a person who belongs to the Alaskan Separatist Group, an anti-America extremist group.

[ort888]

Sarah Palin and Ted Stevens

[hyteckit]

McCain - Palling with Liddy, a man who plan break-ins, kidnapping, and murders


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...0,print.column

[hyteckit]

McCain - Palling with Pres. George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney, two idiots who have destroy America, our Constitution, and our economy

[Doofy]

Dave Mustaine disapproves of this thread, and thinks you're all pansies.

[xi_hyperon]

Disapproval is a wise choice on Mustaine's part, especially if he happens to be a McCain fanboy. It's going to be ugly for both sides from here until 11/04, but McCain's campaign just shot itself in the foot. Honestly, MaCain's decision to go down this road was not only cynical (no surprise there), but just plain dumb, in light of his involvement in the Keating scandal and his continued association with Phil Gramm.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

McCain - Palling with extremist, racist, and anti-semite group US Council for World Freedom

What are the group's racist and anti-semetic goals?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What are the group's racist and anti-semetic goals?

To hate Jewish and non-white people.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Disapproval is a wise choice on Mustaine's part, especially if he happens to be a McCain fanboy. It's going to be ugly for both sides from here until 11/04, but McCain's campaign just shot itself in the foot.

Why? If you want to go the route of judging people based on who they've formed political and personal relationships with over the years, you're not going to find terrorists or known America haters in McCain's past. The best they are going to be able to come up with are real stretches and pointing out that one of the guys who McCain was friendly with ended up in hot water (Keating) but there wasn't any evidence of any wrongdoing on McCain's part. Then they'll have to explain how Obama afforded that property he previously had said he couldn't afford, until his Godfather Tony Rezko bought it so he could get it.

GOOD LUCK!

Honestly, MaCain's decision to go down this road was not only cynical (no surprise there), but just plain dumb, in light of his involvement in the Keating scandal and his continued association with Phil Gramm.

A. If the Keating scandal is the best you've got - a political hitjob that the Democrats even admit was set up to ensure that there wasn't bad publicity during a Democrat controlled congress for a "Democrat Scandal" (which is what it was) - FIRE AWAY!!!!

B. What did Phil Gramm bomb? What laws did Phil Gramm violate? When people died, did Gramm get off on a technicality?

again...GOOD LUCK! Bawhahahahaha!!!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

to hate jewish and non-white people. :d

nice try!!!!

[stupendousman]

Seriously, not even Obama's staff on the NYT will be able to get maybe more than a day out of Keating. There's simply NOTHING there. To try to define McCain as a guy who has a pattern of dishonest behavior to get campaign contributions goes against what most everyone INCLUDING the media knows. McCain's the guy who forced campaign finance reform. McCain is the guy who doesn't ask for earmarks.

Obama is the guy who has taken more $$ from F&F proportionately than any other Senator. Obama is the guy who lied when he said he'd stick to the federal matching funds and instead is getting caught in illegal $200 fundraising schemes. Obama is the guy who has surrounded himself all his life with dangerous left-wing political radicals and America haters.

The reason why they are going to "Keating" is because that's all they've got. That apparently is the best they have. Begala looked pathetic with his latest attempt at smearing by association (and not by direct relationship). Obama can't effectively defend against the accusations, because they are true. No one is going to believe that Obama is stridently against the unrepentant terrorist at the same time he was sharing stages with him, committees with him and being a guest in his home as he introduced Obama to the Chicago political world. No one is stupid enough to believe that Obama does not share the "hate America" agenda his long-time Pastor has preached or that he had no idea he held the beliefs in question. It doesn't pass the "sniff test".


They can't redefine Obama because that's who he is. All they can try to do is tell everyone that everything they know about McCain isn't true - at the same time being shown to be less than honest about their own dirty connections.

Let's face it...Obama's got some serious problems ahead of him. They haven't even started running the commercials pointing out that he's the most liberal member of Congress, and those are POLITICAL GOLD in swing states.

Obama needs to find reasons for people to vote for him - he's not going to convince that many people that McCain is the bad guy he wishes he was. This isn't a game Obama is likely to win if he starts slinging mud.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

blah blah blah
again...GOOD LUCK! Bawhahahahaha!!!

Good luck waving your pom-pons until election day. You're going to be exhausted by all the posts you'll have to write during the time being.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They haven't even started running the commercials pointing out that he's the most liberal member of Congress, and those are POLITICAL GOLD in swing states.

Except in this case, "most liberal" means he voted against Republicans most of the time.

POLITICAL GOLD in swing states.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Except in this case, "most liberal" means he voted against Republicans most of the time.

POLITICAL GOLD in swing states.

No, most liberal as in he voted for the most liberal agenda possible. That the Republicans didn't vote for it is irrelevant. He could have moderated his votes like McCain, but instead he chose to toe the liberal party line, which most American's DON'T support.

How soon people forget that the Democrat controlled Congress is even LESS popular than George Bush. Oh..yeah, I remember why. It's because the media keeps repeating Bush's unpopularity but seldom points out that the Democrats are even MORE unpopular.

[Paco500]

McCain was not convicted of a crime in the Keating Five Scandal, therefore he did nothing wrong.

Therefore, as Ayers was never convicted of a crime, he did nothing wrong.

By your logic, case closed, we can move on.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

McCain was not convicted of a crime in the Keating Five Scandal, therefore he did nothing wrong.

Therefore, as Ayers was never convicted of a crime, he did nothing wrong.

By your logic, case closed, we can move on.

quoted for truth.

[RAILhead]

You really haven't a clue, have you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

McCain was not convicted of a crime in the Keating Five Scandal, therefore he did nothing wrong.

Wrong. McCain was found by both sides of the aisle not to have done anything unethical or illegal, therefore he did nothing wrong. He was included in the investigation due to a technicality - that he was a Republican who did have ties to Keating, and the Democrats needed a Republican so it wasn't a "democrat" scandal (this isn't spin - even Democrats now will admit it). The Democrats sacrificed John Glenn in order to be able to include McCain, though Glenn was found to have done nothing wrong either.

Therefore, as Ayers was never convicted of a crime, he did nothing wrong.

No one refutes that Ayers was involved in illegal activity. Unlike McCain, Ayers GOT OFF on a technicality instead of being dragged into the situation based on a technicality. Not only did he do exactly what was charged, he is unrepentant about it, therefore he did EVERYTHING WRONG.

Your "moral equivalency" show is lacking moral equivalency. I suggest it take it on the road and hone it till you find someone who will buy a ticket. Good luck.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon 

Good luck waving your pom-pons until election day. You're going to be exhausted by all the posts you'll have to write during the time being.

heh

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama was eight years old when a known, unrepentant terrorist held a political coming out party for him in his home as part of a wider mentoring he did for Obama before he was thrust into political office? Wow, he really did start young.

Forget "moral equivalency," what about straight morality? The above sentence is a lie, and I'm not talking about "eight years old" line. This was an event for Alice Palmer, not a "coming-out party" for Obama. Obama was invited by Palmer to the event. There is NO evidence that Obama received ANY mentoring from Ayers. This is supposition and the moral equivalent to slander. Produce ANY evidence that does not come from a partisan, right-wing source that says this was an Obama event or that Ayers was a mentor to Obama, political or otherwise, and I'll fall on my sword and apologize. Not supposition, not inferred, but actual evidence. If you can't, I will not ask you apologise, but will you just shut up about it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Forget "moral equivalency," what about straight morality? The above sentence is a lie, and I'm not talking about "eight years old" line. This was an event for Alice Palmer, not a "coming-out party" for Obama.

Obama was Palmer's choosen successor in the state Senate. Palmer was stepping out to run for Congress and they were using the occasion to promote Obama for the state Senate. The deal was apparently that Obama would step aside and allow Palmer to run for the office if she didn't make it in her congressional attempt. She didn't, but Obama decided he wasn't going to abide by their agreement and he used procedural technicalities to keep everyone accept him off the Democrat ballot in what many say is the first of a string of underhanded schemes by Obama to set himself up politically. Palmer is now a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Obama was invited by Palmer to the event. There is NO evidence that Obama received ANY mentoring from Ayers.

Why was Obama at the terrorist Ayer's home again? Oh yeah, he and Palmer where supported by Ayers. Obama got support time and time again from Ayers and Obama returned the support. Barrack and Michelle even went as far as appearing onstage with Ayers (with praise for him) in 1997 during an event at the University of Chicago.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml

So, no "lies", just spin to make Obama's appeasement of a terrorist look not so bad.

This is supposition and the moral equivalent to slander. Produce ANY evidence that does not come from a partisan, right-wing source that says this was an Obama event or that Ayers was a mentor to Obama, political or otherwise, and I'll fall on my sword and apologize. Not supposition, not inferred, but actual evidence.

He was there at the home of an unrepentant terrorist.

The unrepentant terrorist supported him.

The event was used to introduce Obama as Palmer's "heir apparent".

Obama and the man in question shared stages and other political assocations for years and years.

None of this is debated. YOU ARE SPINNING YOURSELF SILLY. Stop, before you fall down.

Fear....I smell fear.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

You mean where McCain was cleared, and where the Ethic Committee stated McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

I thought they also concluded that John Glenn and McCain had demonstrated "poor judgment."

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More spin, lies and supposition.

You linked to one article that did not support EVEN ONE of your accusations. Are you admitting defeat? If not, cite proof or shut up. Repeating the same lies does not make them true, no matter how much you want them to be.

EDIT:

I'm sorry. It did support your accusation that the Obamas appeared at the same event as Ayers. If this is evidence of support, I suppose McCain is an Obama supporter? But as for supporting you assertion that they had "praise for him" at the event? Unless you have proof of this, I'll assume it's yet another lie.

Can you find ANY evidence that Obama has praised Ayers? ANY? Cite it or shut up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

I thought they also concluded that John Glenn and McCain had demonstrated "poor judgment."

...in not seeing what the other guys who WHERE up to no good where doing, not for anything they themselves did.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You linked to one article that did not support EVEN ONE of your accusations. Are you admitting defeat? If not, cite proof or shut up. Repeating the same lies does not make them true, no matter how much you want them to be.

EDIT:

I'm sorry. It did support your accusation that the Obamas appeared at the same event as Ayers. If this is evidence of support, I suppose McCain is an Obama supporter?

McCain appeared onstage to support one of Obama's initiatives? I guess that WOULD probably be a bad thing if Obama where an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I wouldn't vote for McCain if Obama is found out to have bombed the Pentagon.

But as for supporting you assertion that they had "praise for him" at the event? Unless you have proof of this, I'll assume it's yet another lie.

Michelle Obama said in regard to Ayer's work that it "gives students a chance to hear about the juvenile justice system not only on a theoretical level, but from the people who have experienced it." The Obamas where there in support of Ayers and his education panel. Why the Obamas? Why not some other person that Ayers hardly knew who had no real association or relationship with? Of course, the answer is that the Obamas and Ayers had a long history of political support between them.

If Ayers is an okay guy, then Obama should just say so. Lying about their relationship just confirms that there's something to hide, just as was the case involving his long-time pastor Rev. Wright. Obama wants us to believe he's someone he's not, while trying to convince us that McCain isn't the guy we all know him to be. Obama isn't a particularly honest fellow.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More lies.

Read the article. This was not an "Ayers Initiative." That's a lie not supported by the article. It was an event put on by the University of Chicago. Read the article you posted.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Michelle Obama said in regard to Ayer's work that it "gives students a chance to hear about the juvenile justice system not only on a theoretical level, but from the people who have experienced it."

That's another lie. Flat out and bald-faced. She said that about the panel. Not Ayers work. Read the article.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Obamas where there in support of Ayers and his education panel. Why the Obamas? Why not some other person that Ayers hardly knew who had no real association or relationship with? Of course, the answer is that the Obamas and Ayers had a long history of political support between them.

They were on a panel with him. There is no evidence they supported him on his work in this article. To claim there is is a LIE.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If Ayers is an okay guy, then Obama should just say so. Lying about their relationship just confirms that there's something to hide,

You and a host of right-wingers are the one's doing the lying. Unless you can cite some evidence otherwise. No? Can't? Thought so.

So far you have produced NOTHING that confirms ANY of what you are claiming.

[Mrjinglesusa]

However, McCain and Palin's plan has worked - their campaign of smears, lies, and disinformation has taken the focus off of issues that matter such as the economy, education, health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

How about we talk about McCain cheating on his first wife? What about his alleged affair with a former lobbyist back in 2000?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Read the article. This was not an "Ayers Initiative." That's a lie not supported by the article. It was an event put on by the University of Chicago. Read the article you posted.

...which promoted Ayers views. I know. Who where the two guys prominently mentioned? Ayers and Obama. They were the stars of the show. Ayers is the only guy quoted and it just so happens that the Obamas just happened to be the other prominently quoted people. If you read the article, it's quite clear who the the people would be coming to see.

That's another lie. Flat out and bald-faced. She said that about the panel. Not Ayers work. Read the article.

"Flat out and bald faced". You're foaming at the mouth. Wipe yourself before you slip and fall! Who was the star of the panel...the guy they were promoting with quotes and top billing? The guy was Ayers. Not the 3 other guys who no one has heard of. The panel was praised and Ayers is part of the panel.

They were on a panel with him. There is no evidence they supported him on his work in this article. To claim there is is a LIE.
You and a host of right-wingers are the one's doing the lying. Unless you can cite some evidence otherwise. No? Can't? Thought so.

Keep telling yourself that. Ayers was on the panel. They praised the panel. A basic logical diagram would show you that you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you add insult to injury by making false accusations that I knowingly said something that was false. You are hurting your own credibility here, not mine.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

However, McCain and Palin's plan has worked - their campaign of smears, lies, and disinformation has taken the focus off of issues that matter such as the economy, education, health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

How about we talk about McCain cheating on his first wife? What about his alleged affair with a former lobbyist back in 2000?

Better yet, let's focus on McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy, a CONVICTED FELON.

."What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...3136852.column

http://www.theseminal.com/2008/04/18...ugh-questions/

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-105586

http://news.muckety.com/2008/05/07/g...hn-mccain/2661

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

However, McCain and Palin's plan has worked - their campaign of smears, lies, and disinformation has taken the focus off of issues that matter such as the economy, education, health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc.

How about we talk about McCain cheating on his first wife? What about his alleged affair with a former lobbyist back in 2000?

Why not just talk about who Obama really is? He's got a thin resume and asking the American people to trust us on his word about who he is. He hasn't had years of vetting by the national press like McCain or Biden. He refuses to allow even the most basic records and information about his past to be released. How can we trust him about what he says in regards to the issues when it's clear he isn't being honest with us about the most basic thing - WHO HE IS? If he's lying about that, his word about what he'd do when in office is worthless.

[smacintush]

In and of itself, there isn't anything improper about the guilt by association accusation IMO. It all goes to the question of his character. The problem is you have to show what the relationship is. I don't see much in the Ayers story to compel me to freak out.



His church is more of a concern to me, as well as ACORN.

Expecting us to buy that Obama can attend a church for 20 years and not share the very loudly asserted views of the majority of the church is insulting to our intelligence.

Associating himself with a ACORN shows just how concerned he really is for the rule of law and ethics.

*

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More flagrant B.S.

Get as worked up as you want. Keep repeating the same lies. I'm done here. You have not posted ANYTHING that supports your accusations. The article you posted only addressed one of your numerous lies and then only if you infer well beyond the written word and taint it with your own bias.

I'm drawing a line. Put up or shut-up. Cite evidence. Not your biased interpretation of facts. If you can, I'll admit I'm wrong. Let me say again, facts. Cite them or do your tenuous credibility a favour and just shut up.

[kobi]

Stupendous,

It must be nice to live in a world where you can tell lies, make things up and try and pass them off as the truth and all this without any proof or a citation?

I don't blame you though, you have been listening and to, and believing the right for the last eight years.

In the Right's world, you just lie, repeat the lie, lie again and then repeat until it becomes talking points via Limbaugh, O'Rilley, Hannity; then they get to lie and get paid for it. Is that what your hoping for? To get paid to lie? Then somewhere in that process it magically becomes the truth, much like religion. Just like you the other liars, don't cite either.

Next time cite your lies or they'll be seen as the talking points that they are.

Next.

[Shaddim]

Guilt by association?

Hell, Obama's charm brings all the tax collectors to the yard. He's the bling of Galilee, yo!

I'm just waitin' for him to walk the Potomac, ya'll.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Stupendous,

It must be nice to live in a world where you can tell lies, make things up and try and pass them off as the truth and all this without any proof or a citation?

I told Obama he wasn't going to get away with it. I'm not sure why he never listened. I'll do whatever I can to set him straight though.

Next time cite your lies or they'll be seen as the talking points that they are.

Next.

Next time, credibly refute my points, or your rants will be seen as the depthless wonders that they are.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Get as worked up as you want. Keep repeating the same lies. I'm done here.

GREAT!

You have not posted [b]ANYTHING[/b] that supports your accusations.

Your opinion is noted.

The article you posted only addressed one of your numerous lies and then only if you infer well beyond the written word and taint it with your own bias.

Your opinion is noted. Your stated opinion is not the same as proving me wrong.

I'm drawing a line. Put up or shut-up. Cite evidence. Not your biased interpretation of facts. If you can, I'll admit I'm wrong. Let me say again, facts. Cite them or do your tenuous credibility a favour and just shut up.

I provided citations. I explained how my citations proved my claims. You foamed at the mouth. To your credit, you did take enough time to wipe the spittle to retract one of your false accusations. Lay down, take a rest, and maybe you'll be able to finish the job.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Next time, credibly refute my points, or your rants will be seen as the depthless wonders that they are.

It's hard to refute your lies/points, when they only exist in your mind.

Give me something tangible to refute and we'll talk.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Next time, credibly refute my points, or your rants will be seen as the depthless wonders that they are.

It's hard to refute "points" that are based on wild accusations lacking any credible proof of any wrong-doing. You ALLEGE that Obama is inappropriately linked to Ayers. People have asked for PROOF of this, other than vague intimations that there is any relationship between the two men. You have FAILED to provide any proof, other than citing articles spouting off the same nonsense you are spouting off here. Talk about a "depthless wonder".

EDIT: It is noted that you have conveniently chosen not to address the "inappropriate" relationship between McCain and the convicted felon G. Gordon Libby, which is FAR more substantial (and more recent) than this alleged "relationship" or "mentoring" between Ayers and Obama.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

You mean where McCain was cleared, and where the Ethic Committee stated McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

or that yet another Vaaaast Riiiiiight Wiiiiing Coooonspiracyyyyyy... ?

The conclusion was that he used poor judgment, wasn't it? We are human and have faults. All of us have shown poor judgment at one time or another.

[Shaddim]

Liddy was convicted on charges of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping. His sentence was later commuted by President Carter.

Ayers was a fugitive for ten years and part of a known domestic terrorist group.

Yeah, that's perfectly equal...

[goMac]

Breaking news...

Charles Manson supports John McCain. John McCain now a mass murderer.

More at 11.

[Shaddim]

Well, if McCain went to Chuck's pool parties you'd have a point.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Liddy was convicted on charges of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping. His sentence was later commuted by President Carter.

Ayers was a fugitive for ten years and part of a known domestic terrorist group.

Yeah, that's perfectly equal...

Obama involuntarily knows Ayers because they attended the same political function once (and therefore must be best friends according to right wing logic) and live in the same neighborhood so they sometimes bump into each other.

McCain voluntarily brought Liddy onto his campaign, is actively seeking advice from him, and could potentially give him a role in his administration.

Yeah, that's perfectly equal...