Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Want to play guilt by association?

Want to play guilt by association? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:33 PM
 
Ok, trying to have a rational, fact based discussion with stupendousman is folly. So let me open this up to the rest of the forum. As stupendousman cannot, or will not, provide evidence to support these claims, is there anyone who can? If not, do any of the McCain supporters following this thread have the integrity to admit that these claims are not supported by the facts?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Completely relevant. Palin said, and right wingers agree, that Obama "pals around with terrorists". This is not true.
I disagree. If you attend social functions at the homes of terrorists, invite them to speak at events you plan, talk to them socially when you see them out and about, exchange e-mails and work together on a regular basis, suggesting they are 'paling around" with them isn't a stretch.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
If Timothy McVeigh was released, got his life together, got married, had kids, and attended a local school meeting relevant to his children, I would not brand everyone at the meeting associates of terrorists.
You're purposely minimizing Obama's involvement with him. They didn't just accidentally show up at the same place at the same time. Time and time again they were together because they supported one another. Ayers had Obama IN HIS HOME to introduce him to his radical liberal friends, helped him with his job, and Obama invited Ayers to speak at events he and Michelle planned and praised his work in the Chicago Tribune. When they saw each other in public, they would speak together socially and they exchanged e-mails.

You are either being intentionally dishonest in your portrayals of Obama and Ayers relationship or you simply have not gotten all the facts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Ok, trying to have a rational, fact based discussion with stupendousman is folly.
...when you are Paco500 and are neither rational, nor have the facts on his side.

Again, what specifically do you dispute in this thread?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Ayers helped Obama in politics.
Anyone can donate to the Obama campaign. And it would be impossible for Obama to check who all the people who donate are. And Obama gave the money back.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Obama went to Ayers home to get introduced to Ayers friends and get funds to start his campaign.
False. It was a fundraiser for someone Palmer's campaign, not Obama's. Palmer did bless Obama's political career while he was there, but it was not a fundraiser for Obama.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
"Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
Ayers didn't introduce him, Palmer did.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Ayers helped Obama with the start-up of the Annenberg Challenge
So, what's the point? They both helped the same organization. Again, this isn't proof of a personal relationship. I can eat at the same McDonalds as Ayers, at the same time, that doesn't make me a terrorist.

(it also makes me wonder what you think of the Annenberg Challenge itself. Terrorist training organization?)

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
In 1997, Obama Praised Ayers' Book in a review in the Chicago Tribune.
Picaso painted great pictures. I certainly don't advocate cutting off your ear.

Just because someone has been wrong, doesn't mean they are always wrong.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Obama helped organize academic panels Ayers was invited to speak at.
Extremely weak association. Unless you can prove Obama personally recommended the guy, and then maybe called him up and asked him to speak...

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Ayers and Obama served together on the Woods fund.
Again, just because one eats at the same McDonald's at the same time as Ayers, doesn't mean you know Ayers personally, or that you are a terrorist.

What would you have Obama do? NOT be a community organizer?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Ayers and Obama are neighbors who are in the same "social circle".
Which is a meaningless statement. You've proven that they worked at the same places in some instances. If anything, that means part of the time they were in the same workplace social circle. It says nothing about personal social circles. And it doesn't mean they had a professional working relationship.

You imply a lot of things but you never actually get around to proving anything.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
THIS IS A RELATIONSHIP. THIS IS NOT THE WAY A PERSON WHO FINDS ANOTHER PERSON'S POLITICS REPUGNANT CHOOSES TO DEAL WITH THEM. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU KNOW THEY ARE AN UNREPENTANT DOMESTIC TERRORIST. YOUR SPIN...
Again, what would you have Obama do? Pack up and move and be a community organizer somewhere else? Yes, he had to work in a community that Ayers was also a part of. The only way to please you would be if a) Obama was not a community organizer, or b) if he moved away. And if Obama had done either of those things, you still wouldn't be happy, and you still would be creating threads, but instead titled "OMG Obama refused to help Chicago11!!11!"

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't know about you, but if my "social circle" includes unrepentant domestic terrorists whose specialty is bomb making and is only able to be in a "social circle" because of a legal technicality, I'd look into finding a new "social circle". The fact that Obama chose not to speaks volumes.
So if a non-convicted terrorist kid's went to your kid's school, would you stop participating in school activities?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You're purposely minimizing Obama's involvement with him. They didn't just accidentally show up at the same place at the same time.
Incorrect. They supported the same causes from time to time. That doesn't mean they supported each other.

You really need to take a logic course or something....
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The relevant word in your quote is "accident". What Ayers did was no accident, he never "did his time" for his crime and is unrepentant. Your moral equivalency fails.
Whether or not what Ayers did was an accident is irrelevant because I am not deriving a moral equivalency, I am deriving a logical equivalency. The morality of what Ayers or Laura Bush did is irrelevant to my argument. I will show you below how they are logically equivalent statements.


You have stated that Obama's endorsement of a book by Ayers--a book totally un-related to Ayers activity as a domestic terrorist--is equivalent to Obama supporting Ayers domestic terrorist activities.
So we have the following logical statement for what you have said.

Person A endorses book of Person B, therefore Person A endorses actions of Person B from 40 years ago, actions which are totally un-relatd to the subject of Person B's book.

Now, if we replace the name of Person B with Laura Bush, we get the following.

Person A endorses book of Laura Bush, therefor Person A endorses actions of Laura Bush from 40 years ago, actions* which are totally un-related to the subject of Person B's book.
*in the case of Laura Bush, those actions are vehicular manslaughter.

Therefore, my logical equivalency is valid. So, as I have proven a logical equivalency between your statement about Obama and Ayers and my statement about Person A and Laura Bush, do you want to answer the question I posed?

Should people who endorse Laura Bush's book be considered as endorsing vehicular manslaughter as well?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Anyone can donate to the Obama campaign. And it would be impossible for Obama to check who all the people who donate are. And Obama gave the money back.
I'm not just talking about mailing in a donation, and you know it.

False. It was a fundraiser for someone Palmer's campaign, not Obama's. Palmer did bless Obama's political career while he was there, but it was not a fundraiser for Obama.
FALSE. Here's how someone who was actually there described it:

"Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)

Ayers didn't introduce him, Palmer did.
Why was it necessary to do it in the living room of a known unrepentant terrorist?

So, what's the point? They both helped the same organization. Again, this isn't proof of a personal relationship. I can eat at the same McDonalds as Ayers, at the same time, that doesn't make me a terrorist.
If it were some kind of odd chance thing, then maybe you'd have a point. This sort of thing happened time and time again. Ayers helped Obama with the start of the Annenberg Challenge. He wasn't a stranger who just happened to give a suggestion to another stranger. Your excuses sound more and more pathetic as they go along.

Extremely weak association. Unless you can prove Obama personally recommended the guy, and then maybe called him up and asked him to speak...
The event was organized by the Obamas. I guess they just had no control over who showed up? Pull my other leg.

Which is a meaningless statement. You've proven that they worked at the same places in some instances.
Not "at the same places" but actually WORKED together, engaged in social activity together, exchanged e-mails and talked socially when they saw each other, Obama praised his work and invited him to speak at events he and Michelle organized. That's not some kind of freak coincidence. These are choices Ayers and Obama made. Obama CHOOSE to have a relationship with a domestic terrorist. He had a choice. He could have told Ayers where to shove his bombs. He chose instead to work with him.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Incorrect. They supported the same causes from time to time. That doesn't mean they supported each other.

You really need to take a logic course or something....
Physician, heal thyself.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
You really need to take a logic course or something....
It's not just him. It's about 90% of the people on this forum (and probably 95% of the American population as a whole) who need a logic course. It's sad how few people really grasp the principles of logic in this day and age.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You have stated that Obama's endorsement of a book by Ayers--a book totally un-related to Ayers activity as a domestic terrorist--is equivalent to Obama supporting Ayers domestic terrorist activities.
I stated no such thing.

I stated that Obama has a personal relationship with Ayers based on the countless times they've worked together, both due to them being in the same "social circle" and when they chose to do so out of mutual support. I provided numerous incidents where this was shown to be the case. No one forced Obama to go to Ayers home. No one forced Obama to praise Ayers book and invite him to speak. No one forced Ayers to help Obama set up the Annenberg Challenge. No one forced Ayers to allow Obama into his home for a fundraiser. These are choices these men made.

I never said that Obama directly supported Ayers actions. My claim is that it shows a direct lack of character and good judgement to have a personal relationship (whether you are "close" or not) with an unrepentant domestic terrorist. If there's nothing wrong with doing so, Obama has nothing to fear and shouldn't be lying about his relationship (which also shows poor judgement) as well.
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:04 PM
 
It looks like it's time for Sen. Obama to throw Mr. Ayers under the bus.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not just talking about mailing in a donation, and you know it.
Which, unless you provide proof that Obama had knowledge that Ayers had donated to his campaign, is wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
FALSE. Here's how someone who was actually there described it:

"Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
Read the actual first hand accounts of what happened. Ayers did not know Obama until Palmer introduced him.

If you're like to prove otherwise, please detail previous interactions that Ayers and Obama had before the party. Otherwise, I think it's fair to assume that it's the first time they ever met. And it's hard for Ayers to introduce someone he's never met.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why was it necessary to do it in the living room of a known unrepentant terrorist?
Because that's where Palmer wanted to do it. It wasn't at all a decision by Obama.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If it were some kind of odd chance thing, then maybe you'd have a point. This sort of thing happened time and time again. Ayers helped Obama with the start of the Annenberg Challenge. He wasn't a stranger who just happened to give a suggestion to another stranger. Your excuses sound more and more pathetic as they go along.
Obama was asked to serve on the board. Are you saying he shouldn't have done so? Should he have put Ayer's past ahead of helping the community? Please clarify.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not just talking about mailing in a donation, and you know it.
Which, unless you provide proof that Obama had knowledge that Ayers had donated to his campaign, is wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
FALSE. Here's how someone who was actually there described it:

"Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
Read the actual first hand accounts of what happened. Ayers did not know Obama until Palmer introduced him.

If you're like to prove otherwise, please detail previous interactions that Ayers and Obama had before the party. Otherwise, I think it's fair to assume that it's the first time they ever met. And it's hard for Ayers to introduce someone he's never met.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why was it necessary to do it in the living room of a known unrepentant terrorist?
Because that's where Palmer wanted to do it. It wasn't at all a decision by Obama.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The event was organized by the Obamas. I guess they just had no control over who showed up? Pull my other leg.
You still haven't proven that it was Obama's idea to ask Ayers to speak, or that he asked Ayers to speak, or that the event was solely organized by the Obamas.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not "at the same places" but actually WORKED together, engaged in social activity together, exchanged e-mails and talked socially when they saw each other, Obama praised his work and invited him to speak at events he and Michelle organized. That's not some kind of freak coincidence. These are choices Ayers and Obama made. Obama CHOOSE to have a relationship with a domestic terrorist. He had a choice. He could have told Ayers where to shove his bombs. He chose instead to work with him.
Obama praised his community work. What would you rather have him say? Again, just because one praises Picaso's work doesn't mean they are suddenly advocates of cutting off one's own ear. It's a logical fallacy, and a poor argument.

The biggest problem in your entire line of argument is that, quite simply, for Obama helping the community was a bigger priority than worrying about Ayer's past. That's called getting things done. Ayer's personal life was irrelevant compared to helping the community. Your strongest line of argument so far has been they were both involved in community building activities (oh no! how awful!). Any attempt by you to directly link terrorism or a direct relationship between Obama and Ayers regarding campaign fundraising or policy has fallen flat on it's face.

Would you rather see Chicago's community organizer movement dissolve just because Ayers is involved? Are you suggesting re-habilitated people should have no place in a community?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I stated no such thing.

I stated that Obama has a personal relationship with Ayers based on the countless times they've worked together, both due to them being in the same "social circle" and when they chose to do so out of mutual support. I provided numerous incidents where this was shown to be the case. No one forced Obama to go to Ayers home. No one forced Obama to praise Ayers book and invite him to speak. No one forced Ayers to help Obama set up the Annenberg Challenge. No one forced Ayers to allow Obama into his home for a fundraiser. These are choices these men made.

I never said that Obama directly supported Ayers actions. My claim is that it shows a direct lack of character and good judgement to have a personal relationship (whether you are "close" or not) with an unrepentant domestic terrorist. If there's nothing wrong with doing so, Obama has nothing to fear and shouldn't be lying about his relationship (which also shows poor judgement) as well.
Sigh. Why doesn't anyone understand logic anymore???

Okay then, let me re-phrase my question for you.

Obama's endorsement of Ayers book " shows a direct lack of character and good judgement" because Ayers did things years ago un-related to the topic of his book. Obama did not choose to *not* endorse Ayers book because of the actions committed years ago by Ayers.

So, let's put Laura Bush into this logical statement.

Do people who endorse Laura Bush's books "show a direct lack of character and good judgement" because they are choosing to endorse a book by someone who years ago did something bad that resulted in the death of another person?

Or, to phrase the question in yet another way.

Does it "show a direct lack of character and good judgement" on the part of those people who endorse Laura Bush's book because she did something years ago un-related to the topic of her book?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Oct 6, 2008 at 11:21 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:15 PM
 
Psst, goMac . . .

It was Vincent van Gogh who cut off part of his ear. Pablo Picasso was known as an inveterate womanizer, not a self-mutilator.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Oct 6, 2008 at 11:16 PM. Reason: forgot a comma)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Psst, goMac . . .

It was Vincent van Gogh who cut off part of his ear. Pablo Picasso was known as an inveterate womanizer not a self-mutilator.
Oh don't I look silly.

I admit, I'm not an art major.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Read the actual first hand accounts of what happened. Ayers did not know Obama until Palmer introduced him.
I don't think so:

http://www.pr-inside.com/william-aye...ly-r797225.htm

[quote]Obama was asked to serve on the board. Are you saying he shouldn't have done so? Should he have put Ayer's past ahead of helping the community? Please clarify.[/quote[

Why would Ayers pick Obama to chair the board?


You still haven't proven that it was Obama's idea to ask Ayers to speak, or that he asked Ayers to speak, or that the event was solely organized by the Obamas.
Wow...the hoops one has to jump through to show that Obama had no problem being associated with Ayers. Five people where invited. Obama and 4 panelists one of which was Ayers. At no time did Obama challenge Ayers in regards to his unrepentant terrorist ideals. That's really all one needs to know about Obama's character as far as domestic terrorism goes. Lumped in with all the other evidence, it's clear you are trying WAY TOO HARD to re-write the history that exists between Obama and his friend Ayers.

Obama praised his community work.
Obama chose to review his book and praised his book, on top of appearing onstage at events with him, attending social functions at his home, exchanging e-mails and conversation in his neighborhood, choose to work together on various projects, etc. ...etc.... etc. You know, the part of the pattern you keep wanting to leave out.

Obama helping the community was a bigger priority than worrying about Ayer's past.
It wasn't just the community that was getting helped - IT WAS OBAMA HIMSELF.

Would you rather see Chicago's community organizer movement dissolve just because Ayers is involved? Are you suggesting re-habilitated people should have no place in a community?
If a "movement" REQUIRES the assistance of an unrepentant domestic terrorist, than YES, I'd rather that movement dissolve. That kind of hatred has no business being supported by a "movement".
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Obama's endorsement of Ayers book " shows a direct lack of character and good judgement" because Ayers did things years ago un-related to the topic of his book. Obama did not choose to *not* endorse Ayers book because of the actions committed years ago by Ayers.
This isn't the case of some guy endorsing a book by someone whom he doesn't know is a domestic terrorist who has never helped him advance politically and didn't previously work with by choice.

Again, the left would be UP IN ARMS if McCain attended social functions at the home of the abortion clinic bomber, endorsed his book (not about bombing), etc. etc.

You simply are refusing to let go of your bias long enough to admit that if the shoe was on the other foot, that McCain could EVER survive long enough to see the dust settle.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2008, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
This isn't the case of some guy endorsing a book by someone whom he doesn't know is a domestic terrorist who has never helped him advance politically and didn't previously work with by choice.

Again, the left would be UP IN ARMS if McCain attended social functions at the home of the abortion clinic bomber, endorsed his book (not about bombing), etc. etc.

You simply are refusing to let go of your bias long enough to admit that if the shoe was on the other foot, that McCain could EVER survive long enough to see the dust settle.
Doood,

My only bias is for logical thought. If you read enough of my other posts on here you would know I am a big Ron Paul fan. So, it is completely laughable that you are throwing charges of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias at me simply because I question the questionable logic of your statements.


If you want to continue this logical debate about persons endorsing book authors with questionable actions in their past, let's do that. Otherwise, I am done with this thread. I can't have a logical debate with someone if they don't employ logic. So, do you want to continue to discuss the logical equivalencies between Obama's endorsement of Ayers book and the endorsements of Laura Bush's book?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
kobi
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 12:29 AM
 
Look, any attack on Obama over the supposed Ayers issue is moot.

Obama stood up to these same BS Ayers connections through out the 18-Month nomination fight with Hillary Clinton. Hillary spent millions trying to make a Ayers connection and she couldn't, the Religious Right spent millions to try and make a Ayers connection and they couldn't. They were proven to be a shot in the dark then, just as they are now.

McCain is throwing everything at the wall to see if something will stick. All of these supposed Obama connections are just that, supposed. There isn't anything tangible in any of the arguments, there simply isn't anything there.

This supposed Ayers connection only matters to the lunatic, Hannity, O'Rilley, Rove, Limbaugh fringe of the Republican party. To the rest of the country it's a non-issue; as they would rather talk about the Economy and how it effects them.

The economy what Joe Six-Pack and rest of America wants to talk about, McCain lost this election months ago, but the nail in the coffin for his campaign was his ignorance about the economy and his lack of a plan to fix, or try to fix any of the economic woes.
Why talk about the issues when, the issues won't get you elected?

With these alleged Ayers ties, the only thing that McCain is trying to do is stir up the uneducated Bubba vote.

Based on the posts, it looks like he's stirred the uneducated trolls/base just enough, enough for it not to matter.

It doesn't matter because McCain lost the electorate months ago, when the issues were taken off the agenda and put on the back burner.

It's the economy stupid.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why would Ayers pick Obama to chair the board?
Because they enjoy bombing statues together? What? Where do you think this line of argument is going? Please do tell me. What oh what was the horrible reason Obama got picked?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wow...the hoops one has to jump through to show that Obama had no problem being associated with Ayers. Five people where invited. Obama and 4 panelists one of which was Ayers. At no time did Obama challenge Ayers in regards to his unrepentant terrorist ideals. That's really all one needs to know about Obama's character as far as domestic terrorism goes. Lumped in with all the other evidence, it's clear you are trying WAY TOO HARD to re-write the history that exists between Obama and his friend Ayers.
You're the one jumping through hoops...

I find it funny you're so angry. This doesn't have anything to do with the polls, does it?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why would Ayers pick Obama to chair the board?
Because they enjoy bombing statues together? What? Where do you think this line of argument is going? Please do tell me. What oh what was the horrible reason Obama got picked?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Obama chose to review his book and praised his book, on top of appearing onstage at events with him, attending social functions at his home, exchanging e-mails and conversation in his neighborhood, choose to work together on various projects, etc. ...etc.... etc. You know, the part of the pattern you keep wanting to leave out.
And by various projects you're talking about bomb building? Nuclear weapons? Anthrax?

Oh, that's right. They worked on schools and community building. How awful. Bad Obama. Don't do that.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It wasn't just the community that was getting helped - IT WAS OBAMA HIMSELF.
That's what I say about my priest all the time. We all know he isn't in it for the community, he's just in it for himself. Everyone knows how much money is to be made in public service.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If a "movement" REQUIRES the assistance of an unrepentant domestic terrorist, than YES, I'd rather that movement dissolve. That kind of hatred has no business being supported by a "movement".
So where are his kids going to go to school then? Are we dissolving the school then?

You better let the Chicago city council know that they need to dissolve the city.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Doood,

My only bias is for logical thought.
Yet, your posts exhibit the opposite.

If you want to continue this logical debate about persons endorsing book authors with questionable actions in their past, let's do that.
I guess if it was such a simple matter, the debate could be settled. The fact that this isn't just a matter where Obama JUST endorsed a book whose author had done questionable things goes to show that you are refusing to look at the bigger picture - the one that shows Obama OVER AND OVER engaging in a mutual support system with the man in question. Not just one book endorsement, but a career where this man has played roles in his political life. Such a purposeful limitation on the debate has little to do with "logic" and more to do with politics.

So, do you want to continue to discuss the logical equivalencies between Obama's endorsement of Ayers book and the endorsements of Laura Bush's book?
I don't even know where to start, given there are NO logical equivalencies given that Laura Bush ever put a plan into effect that could be rationally assumed to result in death and destruction of property. You can't make a logical comparison for equality between apples and oranges.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Oct 7, 2008 at 06:59 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 06:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Because they enjoy bombing statues together? What? Where do you think this line of argument is going? Please do tell me. What oh what was the horrible reason Obama got picked?
Because they supported each other. Very consistently throughout the years, as cited.

Oh, that's right. They worked on schools and community building. How awful. Bad Obama. Don't do that.
Lots of evil men have done good deeds. Do you help them with those deeds, or stand on principal and refuse to be a part of their ploys when they continue to be unrepentant regarding their crimes and evil? Do you help set up a daycare with Eric Rudoph? Do you help build the Timothy McVie Center for Conservative Studies? Do you help a dictator get the trains to run on time? At what point do you refuse to engage an evil man? Apparently, there is no point for Obama. Trent Lott one time supported a guy who used to be racist. He had to give up his political leadership post because of it. Obama wants to be President despite supporting a known domestic terrorist who is unrepentant. The double standard is clear...and disgusting.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I guess if it was such a simple matter, the debate could be settled. The fact that this isn't just a matter where Obama JUST endorsed a book whose author had done questionable things goes to show that you are refusing to look at the bigger picture - the one that shows Obama OVER AND OVER engaging in a mutual support system with the man in question. Not just one book endorsement, but a career where this man has played roles in his political life. Such a purposeful limitation on the debate has little to do with "logic" and more to do with politics.
You keep on telling me about my political bias for Obama when I am a Ron Paul man. What gives?

As for the bigger picture you suggest is at play here, I don't care. My involvement in this thread is due to noticing what I saw was a possible logical discrepancy and wanting to investigate that possible discrepancy and discuss the merits of it. We could be talking about flavors of bubble-gum for all I care. What interests me enough to make me want to participate in this thread is the logic of your argument and the possible discrepancies in that logic I see there.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't even know where to start, given there are NO logical equivalencies given that Laura Bush ever put a plan into effect that could be rationally assumed to result in death and destruction of property. You can't make a logical comparison for equality between apples and oranges.
There is every type of logical equivalency in my comparison. You have to remember, I am questioning your principles of logical argument and NOT the content of your argument. Whether or not Ayers or Laura Bush planned to take a life is irrelevant to the logic you use to support your arguments. Your logic argument, as it has been presented in this thread, is that support for a published book shows a pattern of behavior that is indicative of support for other, non-book-related actions of the book's author. And that is what I am arguing about with you.
Do you think the logic of this argument as it applies to Obama also applies to Laura Bush? (I think it does.) And if not, why not? If you have a premise for one argument (support for book = support for non-book-related action of author) why do you apply it only in one context and not in other contexts? Why do you think this logical argument obtains only in the case of Obama and not in the case of Laura Bush?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Oct 7, 2008 at 08:44 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Lots of evil men have done good deeds. Do you help them with those deeds, or stand on principal and refuse to be a part of their ploys when they continue to be unrepentant regarding their crimes and evil? Do you help set up a daycare with Eric Rudoph? Do you help build the Timothy McVie Center for Conservative Studies? Do you help a dictator get the trains to run on time? At what point do you refuse to engage an evil man? Apparently, there is no point for Obama. Trent Lott one time supported a guy who used to be racist. He had to give up his political leadership post because of it. Obama wants to be President despite supporting a known domestic terrorist who is unrepentant. The double standard is clear...and disgusting.
Here's another question for you.

Is your concern about this relationship due to the fact that Obama associates with an evil man? or is your concern about this relationship due to the fact that Obama associates with an un-repentant evil man?

Would you be making all these same arguments against Obama if Ayers had come out at some point in his past and apologized for what he did? In other words, is your concern fundamentally about the association of Obama with an evil man "who has done good things" or is it about Obama's association with an un-repentant evil man?


PS: Are you Catholic? The basis for your complaints seem heavily invested in notions of "good and evil" and "repentance" and those type of ideas are very prominent in the Catholic faith. No worries if you are Catholic; I'm just wondering.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Oct 7, 2008 at 08:55 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
As for the bigger picture you suggest is at play here, I don't care.
Which is why your point is moot. It is the bigger picture at play here. If you ignore it, you're not going to win the debate.

There is every type of logical equivalency in my comparison. You have to remember, I am questioning your principles of logical argument and NOT the content of your argument. Whether or not Ayers or Laura Bush planned to take a life is irrelevant to the logic you use to support your arguments. Your logic argument, as it has been presented in this thread, is that support for a published book
shows a pattern of behavior that is indicative of support for other, non-book-related actions of the book's author.
No. My argument is that support for the author's book, in addition to all the other evidence of support for the author would reasonably lead one to believe that being an unrepentant domestic terrorist isn't something that truly bothers Obama. Otherwise, there would be no "pattern" and no need for Obama to lie and claim that Ayers was just some guy he hardly knew who lived in his neighborhood.

Do you think the logic of this argument as it applies to Obama also applies to Laura Bush? (I think it does.) And if not, why not? If you have a premise for one argument (support for book = support for non-book-related action of author)
Again, not my argument.

If you are using the Laura Bush analogy, here's how it would work logically using the same criteria as Obama:

Laura Bush one time accidentally caused a car accident that caused someone to die. She has professed sorrow and regret for the incident.

Simply praising Laura Bush's book would not be any kind of pattern of support for Laura Bush's actions. You can't really make any kind of logical deduction regarding a person's views on CAR ACCIDENTS based on this, especially since Bush's actions where accidental and she showed regret. If you can show a continued pattern of support for Laura Bush, then you most certainly can argue that the person in question likely doesn't have a problem with what ACCIDENTALLY happened to Laura Bush. I don't think most people would hold it against Mrs. Bush to have had an accident that results in death that you regret, so I'm not quite sure why anyone would care.

On the other hand, Obama has a pattern of support (which includes praising his efforts at left-wing educational indoctrination via education) for Ayers whose actions where NOT accidental and where not regretted. One can reasonably argue based on the same logical criteria we are using with the Laura Bush example, that Obama does not have a big problem with was Ayers PURPOSEFULLY did. While he might disagree with it, his actions were not something that would cause Obama to limit his support of Ayers based on the pattern shown. While there are people who support Obama who also wouldn't have a problem with him supporting a radical leftist domestic terrorist, I think most Americans WOULD, which is why Obama lies about his relationship with Ayers.

I'm staying logically consistent, based on my argument. If you simply look at the "little picture" you are missing the entire context of the argument.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Here's another question for you.

Is your concern about this relationship due to the fact that Obama associates with an evil man? or is your concern about this relationship due to the fact that Obama associates with an un-repentant evil man?
The "un-repentant" part shows that he's STILL an evil man. At the very least, if the guy was repentant and tried to make amends, Obama could claim some kind of moral cover. Most people agree that people should be able to repent, make amends and move on with their life. This guy not only did what he did, but he never payed a price for his crimes and never repented. Until this week, you could argue that Bill Ayers was the OJ SImpson of left-wing politics. Do you think if McCain had all the connections to OJ as Obama had with Ayers that it wouldn't have any effect on his credibility?

Would you be making all these same arguments against Obama if Ayers had come out at some point in his past and apologized for what he did? In other words, is your concern fundamentally about the association of Obama with an evil man "who has done good things" or is it about Obama's association with an un-repentant evil man?
I would still think it was a bad idea to associate yourself with a guy who held those views. It would depend on what Ayers did to absolve himself of his past crimes and hatred for America. If the guy did a 100 degree turn-around and did things to atone for his actions, Obama wouldn't have the problem he does now. I'm not even sure that his "good things" are "good things". The "reform" he wants for education is to teach kids lefti-wing activism.


PS: Are you Catholic? The basis for your complaints seem heavily invested in notions of "good and evil" and "repentance" and those type of ideas are very prominent in the Catholic faith. No worries if you are Catholic; I'm just wondering.
No, I am not. My basis for argument is on observable human nature. Someone who does not repentant from evil is highly likely to engage in evil again.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 09:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Which is why your point is moot. It is the bigger picture at play here. If you ignore it, you're not going to win the debate.
SNIP
I'm staying logically consistent, based on my argument. If you simply look at the "little picture" you are missing the entire context of the argument.
You still seem to think I am interested in debating the merits of the *content* of your arguments. I am not. I DO NOT CARE about the content on your argument. I DO NOT CARE that the topic is about Barack Obama or Laura Bush. What I DO CARE about is the logic system you employ to support your arguments concerning Barack Obama and whether or not you think that logic system applies in other contexts. I am trying to determine if your logic system is internally consistent across content areas or if you are applying it to this specific content area? And if you do think your logic system applies only in this specific content area I would like to know why that is, why you think it is not universal?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 09:32 AM
 
FACTS:

1) Ayers was involved in an organization against the Vietnam war and he and the people in his organization protested the war in a violent manner over 40 years ago (when Obama was 8 years old)

2) In recent years, Ayers has said that he does not regret the actions he took because in his heart he believes it was right to protest the way he did, although he admits they should have done more to protest the war besides bombing federal buildings

3) Ayers is now a professor of education in Chicago and has been involved in community projects, education, and politics in Chicago for decades now

4) Obama, an up and coming politician in Chicago, meets Ayers along with other politicos when he is introduced by Palmer at Ayers home

5) Throughout the next several years, Obama and Ayers, who are both involved in community and education projects in Chicago, happen to be on the same boards and panels

6) They appear to have exchanged emails and phone calls, no doubt because they were working on the same or similar projects

7) Obama has clearly stated that he does not support or condone what Ayers did 40 years ago

So, despite what the right-wing wackos would have us think, the "relationship" between Obama and Ayers has always been a working relationship because both of these men worked on the same or similar projects in Chicago. That's it. That's all Hilary's campaign could ever show because that's all there is to it.

stupendousman would have us all believe that people who did bad things 40 years ago cannot later be involved in communities, community projects, or politics in a positive manner because they don't "regret" the choices they made 40 years ago. He would also have us believe that ANYONE who associates with, works with, eats with, socializes with, etc. these people must therefore CONDONE and SUPPORT what these people did 40 years ago, even if they have publicly denounced the actions these people took 40 years ago.

Therefore......

stupendousman = Right-wing wacko
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Therefore......

stupendousman = Right-wing wacko
Personal attacks are un-called for and diminish the value of any logical points you try to make.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
stupendousman would have us all believe that people who did bad things 40 years ago cannot later be involved in communities, community projects, or politics in a positive manner because they don't "regret" the choices they made 40 years ago.
I believe that people can do whatever they want. I believe though when people make "choices" to engage in terrorism, resulting in the loss of life and property, there has to be a price paid. I do not believe that what Bill Ayers is doing is "positive" either. He is using education and communities in order to further his radical left-wing political beliefs. The totality of the evidence shows Bill Ayers to be an unrepentant terrorist who currently uses the left-wing academia to do his dirty work for him, instead of bombs. If that's the guy Obama wants to go on record as being associated with all these years, let him be honest about it. The fact that he lies about it shows that he knows that most people would agree with my assessment.

He would also have us believe that ANYONE who associates with, works with, eats with, socializes with, etc. these people must therefore CONDONE and SUPPORT what these people did 40 years ago, even if they have publicly denounced the actions these people took 40 years ago.
No. I believe that anyone who "associates with, works with, eats with, socializes with, etc. these people" validates their right to have done what they did. There are different levels of disagreement with people's opinions and actions, from simply agreeing to disagree to being vehemently opposed to their actions. With the former, you simply do nothing but disagree. With the latter you want nothing to do with the person in question. Obama has made it clear that he simply agrees to disagree with domestic terrorism. If he vehemently opposed it, he wouldn't want anything to do with an evil person who feels no remorse for the loss of life and property they planned out and celebrate. He wouldn't be going to parties at the guy's home, wouldn't be praising his work and wouldn't be inviting him to speak at events he help plan, and wouldn't be working on the education schemes Ayers came up with in order to indoctrinate children to be leftist radicals.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Obama knows this, which is why he continues to lie about the matter.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Personal attacks are un-called for and diminish the value of any logical points you try to make.
You are right. I apologize for calling you a Right-wing wacko stupendousman.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 11:39 AM
 
The issue is not what Ayers did 40 years ago, but what he and O' Bama did with the grant money secured by Ayers. Instead of going to Chicago schools, it went to fund left wing community groups. In fact, according the recently released documents, Ayers was asked to help O' Bama formulate the bylaws.
Bill Ayers Was Asked To Help Obama Formulate The Chicago Annenberg Challenge By-Laws.
(Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board Of Directors Minutes, 3/15/95)
Oh, and O' Bama just cut the legs off his "Keating Three" response. It turns out former Ohio Senator John Glenn (one of the Keating "five")has been campaigning for O' Bama, and in fact, introduced O' Bama at a rally in Ohio yesterday (10/05/08)
45/47
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Oh, and O' Bama just cut the legs off his "Keating Three" response. It turns out former Ohio Senator John Glenn (one of the Keating "five")has been campaigning for O' Bama, and in fact, introduced O' Bama at a rally in Ohio yesterday (10/05/08)
I hope he mentions Keating in the debate. McCain can explain to Barry that his buddy in Ohio whose endorsement he seeks did everything he did, in regards to Keating. Barry is slipping, or he knew that Keating was pretty much a bogus tact to take in the first place.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 11:57 AM
 
Stupendousman is simply not going to respond to logic or reason on this issue. Dcmacdaddy, Mrjingleusa, Gomac, Paco500, et al have made valiant efforts to show that this entire line of attack is complete BS. Successful efforts for all those who respond to logic and common sense. But one thing I've come to realize is that common sense isn't always that common. At this stage in the game, further debate with Stupendousman is pointless b/c clearly he is not one to let little things like facts get in the way of his opinions. But then again, you guys could continue just for the pure entertainment value of watching him twist and turn to make something out of nothing.

All the major news organizations who have done a Fact Check have concluded that the accusation is either false or tenuous at best. But if you are the type of paranoid individual who believes that Obama and Ayers were secretly plotting terrorist attacks on the US while they served on a foundation board together many years ago then little things like that won't matter. You will continue to believe what you want to believe regardless. Which is fine. Given the state of the economy we can certainly use a little comedy.

OAW
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I believe that anyone who "associates with, works with, eats with, socializes with, etc. these people" validates their right to have done what they did.
Are you certain you've never spoken to anybody disreputable and thus accidentally validated their right to have done what they did?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Are you certain you've never spoken to anybody disreputable and thus accidentally validated their right to have done what they did?
Possibly accidentally. Accidents happen.

Never have I knowingly associated with a known unrepentant terrorist, as Obama did for quite some time.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Stupendousman is simply not going to respond to logic or reason on this issue. Dcmacdaddy, Mrjingleusa, Gomac, Paco500, et al have made valiant efforts to show that this entire line of attack is complete BS. Successful efforts for all those who respond to logic and common sense. But one thing I've come to realize is that common sense isn't always that common. At this stage in the game, further debate with Stupendousman is pointless b/c clearly he is not one to let little things like facts get in the way of his opinions. But then again, you guys could continue just for the pure entertainment value of watching him twist and turn to make something out of nothing.

All the major news organizations who have done a Fact Check have concluded that the accusation is either false or tenuous at best. But if you are the type of paranoid individual who believes that Obama and Ayers were secretly plotting terrorist attacks on the US while they served on a foundation board together many years ago then little things like that won't matter. You will continue to believe what you want to believe regardless. Which is fine. Given the state of the economy we can certainly use a little comedy.

OAW
Ehhh, according to an eeeevil FNC report is saw this morning, factcheck.org said it was true, cnn factcheck said it was false, wapost fact check took no postion.
45/47
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Dcmacdaddy, Mrjingleusa, Gomac, Paco500, et al have made valiant efforts to show that this entire line of attack is complete BS.
...and have completely failed. Valiant efforts often times are the most unsuccessful ones.

It's much easier to just falsely claim victory, do your laps and run away with your tail between your legs.

All the major news organizations who have done a Fact Check have concluded that the accusation is either false or tenuous at best.
"All the major news organizations" haven't been able to refute a single thing. They've not published a single "false" thing that has been claimed by McCain. What they have done is make excuses and spin the issue in a dishonest way, the same way that posters to this thread have done. The difference is, when the posters here do it, it's very easy to simply refute the false claims with facts.

"All the major news organizations" are the same folks who claimed that despite McCain repeating what the Washington Post reported (in regards to Obama's relationship with Raines) that the Washington Post got it right, Obama got it right, but McCain got it wrong. "All the major news organizations" have been SHAMEFUL in their dishonest reporting for Obama and have no credibility when it comes to judging things that might be problematic to their chosen candidate.

But if you are the type of paranoid individual who believes that Obama and Ayers were secretly plotting terrorist attacks on the US while they served on a foundation board together many years ago then little things like that won't matter.
This is the type of rebuttal that apparently passes for "logic" to these folks. Just one big strawman fallacy. The prosecution rests....
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Ehhh, according to an eeeevil FNC report is saw this morning, factcheck.org said it was true, cnn factcheck said it was false, wapost fact check took no postion.
I'm not disputing you, I just can't find a reference on Factcheck about Palin's accusations. The only Ayers reference was about the a Democratic primary debate and focused on whether the Weather Underground had killed anyone. Do you have a citation?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I'm not disputing you, I just can't find a reference on Factcheck about Palin's accusations. The only Ayers reference was about the a Democratic primary debate and focused on whether the Weather Underground had killed anyone. Do you have a citation?
If these "fact check" sources held any weight, you should just be able to use them to win the debate. Given that most of them take the same "strawman fallacy" approach you guys have (that as long as someone is not "close" or very "good friends" that it's okay to have a long-term relationship with a terrorist) it's no wonder you're having a heck of a time defending Obama against the truthful and factual accusation that he's had a long-term professional and personal relationship with a known unrepentant terrorist, despite how "close" they may or may not have been.

Obama has been caught lying about this and his staff in the MSM will do what it can to protect him.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Because they supported each other. Very consistently throughout the years, as cited.
Supported each other in what? What they supported each other with is the key here, and you continue to dodge the point.

QUOTE=stupendousman;3737094]Lots of evil men have done good deeds. Do you help them with those deeds, or stand on principal and refuse to be a part of their ploys when they continue to be unrepentant regarding their crimes and evil? Do you help set up a daycare with Eric Rudoph? Do you help build the Timothy McVie Center for Conservative Studies? Do you help a dictator get the trains to run on time? At what point do you refuse to engage an evil man? Apparently, there is no point for Obama. Trent Lott one time supported a guy who used to be racist. He had to give up his political leadership post because of it. Obama wants to be President despite supporting a known domestic terrorist who is unrepentant. The double standard is clear...and disgusting.[/QUOTE]

What ploys? What is Ayer's ploy with his community work?

Many black hat computer hackers find work doing security consulting. I have no problem with that.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 04:27 PM
 
This is a fun game.

John McCain and Oleg Deripaska.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...403383_pf.html

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 04:40 PM
 
Oh man, I can't wait to hear stupendousman's detailed hair-splitting on how Obama's emails and calls and association with Ayers is so much more complicit with his involvement in terrorism than McCain's cocktail/business meeting with a dirty Russian billionaire, which after all was held in a third-party location (NOT HIS HOME!) and there is NO EVIDENCE that any emails or subsequent involvement with the billionaire is indicative of McCain's association with said Russian.

*throws cancer-inducing popcorn in the microwave, grabs remote*

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh man, I can't wait to hear stupendousman's detailed hair-splitting on how Obama's emails and calls and association with Ayers is so much more complicit with his involvement in terrorism than McCain's cocktail/business meeting with a dirty Russian billionaire, which after all was held in a third-party location (NOT HIS HOME!) and there is NO EVIDENCE that any emails or subsequent involvement with the billionaire is indicative of McCain's association with said Russian.

*throws cancer-inducing popcorn in the microwave, grabs remote*
Yeah...you're right. Meeting a guy once at the request of a friend at an overseas social gathering, doing nothing for him, and never talking to him again is equal to the long-term relationship Obama had with a terrorist who lived right in his neighborhood.

It just must KILL you guys that McCain isn't the one meeting the crooks, maintaining contact with them, them getting him jobs, political help and even personal property that he otherwise couldn't afford.

McCain's the guy who shuns earmarks, championed campaign finance reform, booted an old friend (Keating) once it was apparent he had been involved in illegal activity, hasn't been taking scads of cash from illegal sources via $200 and under campaign funds, hasn't taken scads of cash from F&F...... I could go on and on, but why bother.

Again..my leg..it's killing me. You guys REALLY need to try harder or give up.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Supported each other in what? What they supported each other with is the key here, and you continue to dodge the point.
I've outlined it already. They socialized and supported each other politically. Obama's political "coming out" was at Ayers house, Ayers had him chair the CAC, Ayers helped Obama with the by-laws for the CAC, Obama went out of his way to do a glowing review of Ayers book in the Chicago Tribune, the Obamas had him appear on a panel they organized, they often talked and socialized, the exchanged e-mails etc. etc. etc.

When you do things for each other by choice, that is known as "support". When you support someone over and over you are known to have a "relationship" with them.

What ploys? What is Ayer's ploy with his community work?
His "community work" is to establish back doors in training leftist activists under the guise of "education reform". It's not about the community or reform. It's about leftist activism.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 05:26 PM
 
So Leftist activism == terrorism?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 06:42 PM
 
Here is CNN's report on Ayers and O' Bama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI7pUMbaINI
They edit Kurtz's comments to fit the Spin on the relationship. The Drew Griffin states Palmer said she did not organize the "political coming out party", she was an invitee and was there only briefly and was hosted by Ayers. Anderson Vanderbilt spins afterward
45/47
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2008, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So Leftist activism == terrorism?
Uh...no.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Here is CNN's report on Ayers and O' Bama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI7pUMbaINI
They edit Kurtz's comments to fit the Spin on the relationship. The Drew Griffin states Palmer said she did not organize the "political coming out party", she was an invitee and was there only briefly and was hosted by Ayers. Anderson Vanderbilt spins afterward
Thanks for the link! If CNN is to believed, the claim that Obama was invited by Palmer is a lie. Palmer says she was there just a short time and other witnesses who where there claim that the reason for the party was to announce Obama as Palmer's heir apparent.

Not only does Obama pal around with known unrepentant terrorists, but he then LIES ABOUT IT when he's caught. Nice.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2008, 12:40 PM
 
NY Times Denies Obama and Ayers Close
8 Oct 2008 | John Semmens
Posted on October 8, 2008 11:19:36 AM EDT by John Semmens

The New York Times alleges that its “exhaustive” investigation failed to turn up any evidence that the relationship between Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (Ill) and 1960s Weatherman terrorist William Ayers is or was a close one.

“We could find no witnesses to attest that Obama and Ayers even held hands, much less kissed or had sex,” wrote Times reporter, Scott Shane. “No one ever saw them out on a date. There are no love letters. I’d have to say that these men are not close as I understand the term. The GOP claim that they are is clearly a smear.”

Ayers participated in several bombings, including one at the Pentagon. On September 11, 2001 he said he regretted not doing more. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education.
Perfect!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,