[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I asked to show where they signed off on what he actually did. Simply repeating her name doesn't qualify as a citation. Are you really going to claim that a conservative Republican would give 50 million dollars to someone they knew was a 60's radical terrorist, in order to give the money to left-wing organizations to indoctrinate kids?

You can follow links as well as I can. I guess. You can't seem to read books, Wikipedia, or newspapers. I asked you repeatedly in the other thread for any evidence for your claims: "The guys Nobel selects, sure. They have a history of picking people for lefist political reasons. This "open letter" is a prime example of the type of political posturing those guys do and the reason their "science" comes up for doubt. When you mix politics with the search for knowledge, you just get a bunch of bulls***." More than a dozen posts later, you hadn't come up with a single piece of evidence, not even anything anecdotal. It is really cheeky to complain about my citations now.


I am just pointing out that McCain is trumpeting the support of a terrorist sympathizer (who also happened to work in Reagan's administration---coincidence?). That makes McCain a terrorist sympathizer. Since you support McCain, that makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

Really, aren't you tired of this argument of claiming that your opponents support terrorism when they obviously don't? It started with Bush---Rove's idea---and now McCain has picked it up. It is bad for the country, and now it is a tired, stale idea that only appeals to the lazy.

Really? Are you really saying that? If they did, then they are in no way "conservative" or anything else resembling "republican" that I can see.

Interesting that you simply define the problem away. If a Republican allegedly supports terrorism, you say that they aren't really Republican. If a Democrat allegedly supports terrorism, you make 100 posts on it.

Have you admitted yet that you were completely clueless about how Nobel prizes are awarded?

[ort888]

So what if they are picking people for political leftist reason? That's the whole point. These smart people are lefties. Do they have some sort of secret motive for trying to put out a leftist political ideals? You talk as if it is something sinister or underhanded.

If they all leaned right would the be level headed and fair? I'm not sure what you are even driving at.

When you mix religion and politics it's dangerous as well. More dangerous if you ask me. Personally, I think politics and the quest for knowledge go hand in hand. Why shouldn't they?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by tie 

If a Democrat allegedly supports terrorism, you make 100 posts on it.

It's nice of you to be conservative.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I don't think you know what imply/infer mean.

No, I know exactly what it means. The problem with your analysis is that you believe that the facts have to infer MORE than what the facts actually show in order to be damaging. In your world, it's not bad enough to infer that Obama has bad judgement because his friend/co-worker/political co-supporter was an unrepentant terrorist.

You believe that what really is necessary if for them to thing that this terrorist is middle eastern. I'm here to tell you, I don't think most people care where they are from. People who think it's a good idea to kill other Americans and blow things up aren't generally well thought of, and those who don't mind being associated with them do so at their own peril.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sorry, I'm about to blow your mind here.

As far as I can tell, you haven’t met your own criteria of “proof” when it comes to demonstrating Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers, but I’m a nice guy so I’ll go what I consider to be the extra mile to humor you on the subject of the Annenberg Foundation, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and the extent to which the Annenberg Foundation’s trustees (Walter and Leonore Annenberg, and their children), who, I will repeat, had to sign off on grant disbursements (this is not something I have to prove; this is in the very definition of trustee) knew of the nature of the project.

People "sign off' on things all the time that they do not even read or know about. They rely on staff (who often times do not have the best interests of their employers at heart) to vet things so they don't have to bother with the minutia. SImply saying 'that's their job" doesn't prove anything about what the Annenbergs knew about Ayers or how exactly he was going to distribute the money. It's quite possible people on Annenberg's staff knew, but I'd be willing to bet Annenberg (if he's a conservative Republican) would not have have given millions to a unrepentant terrorist who ended up funneling the money to left-wing indoctrination groups and radical "black liberation" churches.

Your view that the Annenberg family would have been willfully ignorant of the state of their $500 million (total) investment in (by all accounts) fairly radical attempts at public school reform is absurd, and as far as I can tell is not backed by any informed understanding of the Annenberg Challenge itself or how private foundations typically go about their business.

The 500 million went to A BUNCH of places and a bunch of people. To suggest that the Annenberg's themselves knew where every dollar was going or personally knew the background of every grant recipient is absurd. It's quite possible that people on their staff did know, but as we've seen there are a HUGE number of people in academia (likely where many of the Challenge's staff came from) who have no problems with the type of left-wing bilge Ayers spills and would not have a big incentive to give any more information than was necessary in order to see to it that favorites of the higher-education industry got the perks they felt were due.

I'm sorry but the "it's their job" claim doesn't prove the point.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

You can follow links as well as I can. I guess. You can't seem to read books, Wikipedia, or newspapers. I asked you repeatedly in the other thread for any evidence for your claims: "The guys Nobel selects, sure. They have a history of picking people for lefist political reasons. This "open letter" is a prime example of the type of political posturing those guys do and the reason their "science" comes up for doubt. When you mix politics with the search for knowledge, you just get a bunch of bulls***." More than a dozen posts later, you hadn't come up with a single piece of evidence, not even anything anecdotal. It is really cheeky to complain about my citations now.

I explained my observations and why they were valid, and in return I got "nuh-uhs" and 'they do not's". I DID NOT come up with the single piece of evidence you requested, because it was not required to support my claim in that thread. The fact that you want to come here and bring up an old point simply shows your lack of an arugment in the current debate. It's akin to having an intellectual argument than the other guy gets stumped and says "Oh yeah...well your mother is FAT!"

I am just pointing out that McCain is trumpeting the support of a terrorist sympathizer (who also happened to work in Reagan's administration---coincidence?). That makes McCain a terrorist sympathizer. Since you support McCain, that makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

FUNNY! Again, please post the citation that shows that the Annenbergs actually knew a terrorist was getting their money, and was siphoning it off to ACORN and a leftist "black liberation" church to indoctrinate children into left-wing activism.

All I need is a link.

ps. The "it's their job" gambit has already been played.

Really, aren't you tired of this argument of claiming that your opponents support terrorism when they obviously don't?

Really, aren't you tired of CONSTANTLY having it pointed out to you your inability to form a logical point of debate, when you keep offering these strawman arguments? I guess not.....

Interesting that you simply define the problem away. If a Republican allegedly supports terrorism, you say that they aren't really Republican. If a Democrat allegedly supports terrorism, you make 100 posts on it.

If you can prove to me Annenberg knowingly gave millions to someone he never met, but knew to be an unrepentant terrorist who was going to siphon the money for left-wing indoctrination schemes, I'd be glad to start posting about what a creep that guy Annenberg is. Chances are, he didn't have a clue.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People "sign off' on things all the time that they do not even read or know about. They rely on staff (who often times do not have the best interests of their employers at heart) to vet things so they don't have to bother with the minutia. SImply saying 'that's their job" doesn't prove anything about what the Annenbergs knew about Ayers or how exactly he was going to distribute the money. It's quite possible people on Annenberg's staff knew, but I'd be willing to bet Annenberg (if he's a conservative Republican) would not have have given millions to a unrepentant terrorist who ended up funneling the money to left-wing indoctrination groups and radical "black liberation" churches.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about $50 million of Annenberg's own money going to a program proposed by Ayers specifically. Ayers' name was on the proposal. This was part of a $500 million national program that Annenberg was attaching his own name to, that he obviously felt very strongly about. To suggest that Annenberg didn't know is silly. He approved the grant. End of story.

[Chongo]

Here's an article that explains why it is what Ayers is up to now that is important.

A Revolutionary's 'Education' Advice

excerpt

Ayers makes this very clear in all his writings. K-12 teachers, he has written, must teach "for social justice and liberation" - making classrooms into centers for creating revolutionary change.

Time has only hardened Ayers' views. Consider an interview he gave two years ago to "Revolution," a magazine published by The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, a self-described "Marxist, Leninist, Maoist" group.


There, Ayers argues that education can't be separated from "the concept of politics and political change." Urban schools are now merely preparing students "for prison, for unemployment and for war."

So, to create a genuine "progressive" education for our children, teachers must work to overturn the repressive, racist and imperialist system that governs the United States; it is imperative to fight "the most reactionary cabal of ideologues" that control the federal government and the media.

Even if the Republicans lose the White House in in 2008, Ayers notes, the ruling class will remain irritated by education - which he proudly proclaims the one area they don't control. To keep it that way, he calls for fighting to stop proposals such as those favoring charter schools and vouchers. (Ayers doesn't seem to realize, or care, that such reforms gain access to good education for precisely the poor whose interests he claims to represents.)

This is what O' Bama was doling out money for.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

O' Bama

Seriously. Why.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about $50 million of Annenberg's own money going to a program proposed by Ayers specifically.

Annenberg uses 50 million dollar bills to wipe with. Remember, this is money HE IS GIVING AWAY. It's not hurting him an ounce to part with it. Of course he wants it to be for a good cause, but let's face it, in the end he pretty much flushed it down the toliet anyways. They stopped giving the money away because it wasn't accomplishing anything. Looking at who ended up with the money, it's no wonder. Obama couldn't achieve the goals of the challenge any better than he can any other task other than running for office.

Ayers' name was on the proposal.

He's that "education reform" guy those people in Chicago speak highly of, right?

This was part of a $500 million national program that Annenberg was attaching his own name to, that he obviously felt very strongly about. To suggest that Annenberg didn't know is silly. He approved the grant. End of story.

No, it's not. It's clear that there's a LOT more of it than you will ever admit. If you simply look at that story you linked to, you can see the complex branches of people and organizations that were involved which I'm sure was a logistical nightmare. You claim that the Annenbergs where aware of every nuance of that multi-city multi-million dollar operation, even the ones that seem to be diametrically opposed to the Annenberg's claimed poltical philosophy. Knowing what I know about charities (or really any complex financial arrangement) and how it's benefactors often times simply sign checks without always knowing the details, I'm simply calling B.S. unless you can actually provide evidence that shows that they knew the specific details regarding Ayers and his plan.

BEE. ESS.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You claim that the Annenbergs where aware of every nuance of that multi-city multi-million dollar operation, even the ones that seem to be diametrically opposed to the Annenberg's claimed poltical philosophy.

I'm not claiming anything like that. I'm claiming that the Annenbergs knew who Ayers was when they agreed to give $50 million to a project that he proposed. Legally, in terms of protecting the foundation's tax sheltered status, they (the trustees) are responsible for where their money goes, so the burden is really on you to prove otherwise.

I'm also claiming that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's methodology was not so diametrically opposed to the goals of the national Annenberg Challenge program, but that's not as important as the idea that, by your own standards, Annenberg associated with a terrorist.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Annenberg uses 50 million dollar bills to wipe with. Remember, this is money HE IS GIVING AWAY. It's not hurting him an ounce to part with it. Of course he wants it to be for a good cause, but let's face it, in the end he pretty much flushed it down the toliet anyways.

It's clear you have never been involved in grant making.

BTW, the largest grant that the Annenberg Foundation awarded in 2007 was $5 million, so to say that a $50 million grant is chump change that wouldn't have invited the trustees' attention is beyond ridiculous.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here's an article that explains why it is what Ayers is up to now that is important.

Wow, Obama knows Ayers and that so that not only makes him responsible for what Ayers did 40 years ago, apparently it makes him responsible for everything Ayers is currently doing as well. At what point does one give Ayers a little credit that he's following his own agenda in life without Barack Obama's personal blessing being give to every move he makes. O sorry, Barack HUSSEIN O'Bama.

Have you noticed that each time the right steps up the scare tactics, the country goes a little further to the left and Obama's lead widens ? How 'bout tell us what good thing McCain is going to do for the country. To the title of this thread: The real Barack Obama is the one candidate that isn't trying to scare me into voting for him.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People "sign off' on things all the time that they do not even read or know about. They rely on staff (who often times do not have the best interests of their employers at heart) to vet things so they don't have to bother with the minutia. SImply saying 'that's their job" doesn't prove anything about what the Annenbergs knew about Ayers or how exactly he was going to distribute the money.

Woah. Right up until the end of that I thought you were talking about what Obama knew about Ayers and the crazy parties he hosted/attended. Do you ever sit back and appreciate irony? You should try it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Bleh.

I'm more interested in finding out was Obama a member of the Socialist New Party? What's up with that- that's damned interesting, if it's true.

Someone in the AWOL media should at least ask him about that.

And by the way, not that 'Bailout McCain' or almost any of the rest of these clowns couldn't have been charter members as well.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I DID NOT come up with the single piece of evidence you requested, because it was not required to support my claim in that thread.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The guys Nobel selects, sure. They have a history of picking people for lefist political reasons. This "open letter" is a prime example of the type of political posturing those guys do and the reason their "science" comes up for doubt. When you mix politics with the search for knowledge, you just get a bunch of bulls***.

This definitely requires strong evidence. Judging from this thread, too, it seems like you can't provide evidence for any of your arguments.

Why should I give this up? I stand behind my posts and I expect others to do the same. Don't think you can post complete nonsense, refuse to give any support for it when challenged, and then just go off and start new threads as if nothing happened. Do you stand behind your posts? Give me evidence.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

This definitely requires strong evidence. Judging from this thread, too, it seems like you can't provide evidence for any of your arguments.

I explained that it was based on the observation that myself, and MANY OTHERS had, that of late several of their awards where given to people with liberal ideologies and causes, strongly opposed by American conservatives - especially at a time when there were candidates far more deserving who did far more to actually forward their causes. Gore, Carter, Arafat, the guy who can be quoted as saying "I would love to kill George Bush" (he got the peace prize, btw) and many others can be offered as examples while no similar conservative pattern can be established. The awards are all based from the same location and supervised by the same foundation. They pick who it is that gets to do the nominating. The fact that a bunch of these guys also decided to get involved in politics in a way to help a left-wing candidate by invoking the Nobel name simply gives added credence to the appearance of Nobel playing politics.

That's what I said, and refusing to research and find a known liberal who got a science award doesn't refute the ACTUAL point I made which was based on an observation.

Why should I give this up?

I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that you are changing the subject IN THIS THREAD because you are losing. No one stopped you from either continuing this discussion in the other thread, or for you to simply stopping and proclaiming "I WON". The fact is, you're having trouble in this thread, so you are trying to use the other thread to negate this one. Ten points if you can recite for me the logical fallacy you are engaging in!

[Chongo]

Who is Barack? From Al Jazeera: Gaddafi: Obama is a Muslim

During his speech, Qaddafi spouts a new Kennedy Assassination theory, Israel did it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's clear you have never been involved in grant making.

There my friends, is essentially a summation of SpaceMonkey's rebutal. ENLIGHTENING!

5 points if you can tell me what kind of logical fallacy this line of reasoning is referred to as!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Woah. Right up until the end of that I thought you were talking about what Obama knew about Ayers and the crazy parties he hosted/attended. Do you ever sit back and appreciate irony? You should try it.

Actually, I pointed out the irony above. We are to believe that Obama had a working/social relationship with a guy for years whose main claim to fame was as a terrorist, yet he really didn't have any idea about that until after he stopped socializing with him. All Obama knew was that he was some college professor, as he puts it.

A guy has a long-term relationship with someone doesn't know, but a guy who has never met the man is expected to know exactly who he is just because he may at one point have seen his name on a piece of paper provided to him by his staff, who was supposed to have vetted this stuff for him. One is credible, the other is not.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There my friends, is essentially a summation of SpaceMonkey's rebutal. ENLIGHTENING!

Senator McCain, is that you?

Obviously you're not going to be convinced, but I think it's clear to anyone who has followed our exchange that I know what I'm talking about, and you're just grasping at straws. If "it's his job" didn't fly with Annenberg, why should "it's his job" fly for your argument about Jeff Zucker's bias from our exchange a week or two back?

You're a piece of work.

[SpaceMonkey]

Edit: Baleeted.

[Chongo]

Who is Barack? Farrakhan calls him the Messiah 9 min version

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Obviously you're not going to be convinced, but I think it's clear to anyone who has followed our exchange that I know what I'm talking about, and you're just grasping at straws. If "it's his job" didn't fly with Annenberg, why should "it's his job" fly for your argument about Jeff Zucker's bias from our exchange a week or two back?

You're a piece of work.

A. It's Annenberg's money. He can do what he likes with it. If he wants to trust his staff's judgement and just sign off on it, that's his business. He answers to no one. Unless he had reason to believe they'd do something stupid (like give millions to a terrorist), there's no reason for him to delve into the specifics of each and every expenditure. Knowing what I know about how businesses work, and a foundation at it's very core is a non-profit business, the guy at the very top seldom knows exactly what is going on with the nuts and bolts minutia. There's not any evidence that the details we now know about Ayers and what he actually ended up doing with the money, was actually told to Annenberg. If you'd just hear those who support Ayers tell the tale, he is just a guy who lives in Chicago near Barack Obama who is a college professor who is an expert on education reform. Heck, with an explanation like that, if I didn't know better NOW, I might have given him money as well.

B. On the other hand, Jeff Zucker is the head of a publicly traded corporation. He has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of those he works for - not for himself. MSNBC has for some time been ridiculed for it's lack of professionalism regarding it's biased reporting. The integrity of one of the properties Zucker manages is most certainly his responsibility and to suggest he wouldn't know about something of this nature, and wasn't paying attention when the network decided to go totally pro-democrat isn't credible. Especially when you find out that Zucker is a huge Obama supporter. Zucker is an Obama supporter - his network supports Obama. You don't have to take off your shoes to add up this math.

What doesn't add up is Annenberg is supposedly a conservative Republican - the claim is Annenberg knowingly gave millions to a left-win radical communist who is an unrepentant terrorist, in order for him to pay left-wing organizations to indoctrinate school children. When something like this doesn't add up logically, there's usually a reason for it. I'd like to hear Annenberg's take on this. Until then, I don't think that the conclusions that some have tried to draw are credible.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhahahaha, so now we're right back to the "don't vote for Obama because he is a Muslim" argument.

A beautiful, full, predictable circle. Oh how patently racist you people can be.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. It's Annenberg's money. He can do what he likes with it. If he wants to trust his staff's judgement and just sign off on it, that's his business. He answers to no one. Unless he had reason to believe they'd do something stupid (like give millions to a terrorist), there's no reason for him to delve into the specifics of each and every expenditure. Knowing what I know about how businesses work, and a foundation at it's very core is a non-profit business, the guy at the very top seldom knows exactly what is going on with the nuts and bolts minutia. There's not any evidence that the details we now know about Ayers and what he actually ended up doing with the money, was actually told to Annenberg. If you'd just hear those who support Ayers tell the tale, he is just a guy who lives in Chicago near Barack Obama who is a college professor who is an expert on education reform. Heck, with an explanation like that, if I didn't know better NOW, I might have given him money as well.

B. On the other hand, Jeff Zucker is the head of a publicly traded corporation. He has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of those he works for - not for himself. MSNBC has for some time been ridiculed for it's lack of professionalism regarding it's biased reporting. The integrity of one of the properties Zucker manages is most certainly his responsibility and to suggest he wouldn't know about something of this nature, and wasn't paying attention when the network decided to go totally pro-democrat isn't credible. Especially when you find out that Zucker is a huge Obama supporter. Zucker is an Obama supporter - his network supports Obama. You don't have to take off your shoes to add up this math.

What doesn't add up is Annenberg is supposedly a conservative Republican - the claim is Annenberg knowingly gave millions to a left-win radical communist who is an unrepentant terrorist, in order for him to pay left-wing organizations to indoctrinate school children. When something like this doesn't add up logically, there's usually a reason for it. I'd like to hear Annenberg's take on this. Until then, I don't think that the conclusions that some have tried to draw are credible.

Again, you seem to give Annenberg the benefit of the doubt, while requiring other posters to somehow prove that Obama doesn't sympathize with Ayers. It doesn't work that way. Never mind the fact that former Nixon aide Arnold Weber was also on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge itself, along with Obama.

And again, you're simply incorrect about how foundations work. Independent foundations do not "answer to no one." They answer to several entities, principally the IRS. Grantmaking foundations as we know them today are quite new, starting at the end of World War Two when the United States' high income tax rates spurred the proliferation of foundations and trusts, most of which were simply tax shelters. Almost two decades of reform efforts ended with the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which is the current controlling legislation.

The Tax Reform Act defined a fundamental social contract: in exchange for exemption from most taxes, a private foundation must (a) pay out at least 5% of the value of its endowment each year, none of which may be for any private benefit of any individual or group; (b) not own or operate significant for-profit businesses; (c) file detailed public annual reports and conduct annual audits in the same manner as a for-profit corporation; (d) meet a suite of additional accounting requirements unique to nonprofits. Foundations, like a publicly-traded company, DO have a public obligation.

In keeping with the first requirement, it is the legal responsibility of the trustees of the foundation to ensure that no organization will use grant funds for political lobbying, for-profit ends, etc. Ensuring that a $50 million grant, most of which would later be re-granted as subawards to third-party organizations, is not going to jeopardize the foundation's tax status is not "nuts and bolts minutia." It's a basic legal burden for the trustees. In order to prove their eligibility, the applicants, which in this case included Ayers, would have had to verify their own tax status, identify their leadership, etc. $50 million is a large amount of money, even for the Annenberg Foundation, as I mentioned above. Having a basic bio of the applicants would rank among the bare minimum that the Annenberg Foundation trustees would have had in front of them as they made their decision.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I explained that it was based on the observation that myself, and MANY OTHERS had, that of late several of their awards where given to people with liberal ideologies and causes, strongly opposed by American conservatives - especially at a time when there were candidates far more deserving who did far more to actually forward their causes. Gore, Carter, Arafat, the guy who can be quoted as saying "I would love to kill George Bush" (he got the peace prize, btw) and many others can be offered as examples while no similar conservative pattern can be established. The awards are all based from the same location and supervised by the same foundation. They pick who it is that gets to do the nominating. The fact that a bunch of these guys also decided to get involved in politics in a way to help a left-wing candidate by invoking the Nobel name simply gives added credence to the appearance of Nobel playing politics.

None of the science Nobels have ever been given out based on liberal ideologies. To my knowledge none of the science Nobelists' science has ever been seriously doubted. (Of course, all science is under continual revision.) To claim otherwise is dishonest. To claim otherwise and refuse to give any evidence for it is willfully dishonest. You need to give up your lies.

The fact is, you're having trouble in this thread, so you are trying to use the other thread to negate this one. Ten points if you can recite for me the logical fallacy you are engaging in!

Even more basic than logical standards in a debate are standards for honesty. You are a liar and you need to come clean. Then you can talk about "logical fallacies." I said before, I stand behind my posts. Do you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, you seem to give Annenberg the benefit of the doubt, while requiring other posters to somehow prove that Obama doesn't sympathize with Ayers.

Did you not see the justification?

All evidence points to Annenberg's politics being diametrically opposed to those of Ayers. Obama has praised and supported Ayers leftist ideas on things like education and capital punishment. There's no direct evidence that Annenberg even knew who Ayers was and if he'd even heard of Ayers, he likely was only told the same dishonest cover story Obama uses, that he was a "college professor and expert in school reform". There's ample evidence to show that Obama and Ayers were (though not "close") friends who socialized and worked together on projects of mutual interest for years. In fact, Ayers gave multiple interviews in major news magazines during the time they were working together where he talks about his lack of repentance over being a terrorist and how he considers himself a communist.

That's why in one case the benefit of the doubt is given, and the other it's not. In order to make a credible claim of something, you have to overcome all the elements involved where it requires a suspension of disbelief as believing Annenberg would knowingly give cash to Ayers for the reason he used it for. No suspension of disbelief is needed to assume that one of Ayers long-time friends and co-worker would no nothing of Ayers past or his theories on politically indoctrinating children with his admitted communist beliefts.

It doesn't work that way. Never mind the fact that former Nixon aide Arnold Weber was also on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge itself, along with Obama.

So, how was Ayers described in the materials given those on the board, where they had to "sign off"? What was the specific description of what Ayers wanted to do that included indoctrinating children in left-wing activism?

And again, you're simply incorrect about how foundations work. Independent foundations do not "answer to no one." They answer to several entities, principally the IRS.

In order to keep their tax excempt status, sure. But keeping in good graces with the IRS wasn't likely a task that Annenberg assigned himself. As long as those he choose to vet the projects did their job, there was no reason to concern himself.

Grantmaking foundations as we know them today are quite new, starting at the end of World War Two when the United States' high income tax rates spurred the proliferation of foundations and trusts, most of which were simply tax shelters. Almost two decades of reform efforts ended with the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which is the current controlling legislation.

The Tax Reform Act defined a fundamental social contract: in exchange for exemption from most taxes, a private foundation must (a) pay out at least 5% of the value of its endowment each year, none of which may be for any private benefit of any individual or group; (b) not own or operate significant for-profit businesses; (c) file detailed public annual reports and conduct annual audits in the same manner as a for-profit corporation; (d) meet a suite of additional accounting requirements unique to nonprofits. Foundations, like a publicly-traded company, DO have a public obligation.

Again, as long as Annenberg's employees did their job, there'd be no reason to worry. Annenberg wasn't an accountant and had people make sure that all the laws where applied reasonably. That still isn't evidence that Annenberg himself knew exactly where every dime was going or the political background of the members of academia the people vetting the grants where giving them to.

In keeping with the first requirement, it is the legal responsibility of the trustees of the foundation to ensure that no organization will use grant funds for political lobbying, for-profit ends, etc. Ensuring that a $50 million grant, most of which would later be re-granted as subawards to third-party organizations, is not going to jeopardize the foundation's tax status is not "nuts and bolts minutia." It's a basic legal burden for the trustees. In order to prove their eligibility, the applicants, which in this case included Ayers, would have had to verify their own tax status, identify their leadership, etc. $50 million is a large amount of money, even for the Annenberg Foundation, as I mentioned above. Having a basic bio of the applicants would rank among the bare minimum that the Annenberg Foundation trustees would have had in front of them as they made their decision.

It shouldn't be hard then to get this "basic bio" and point out where it outlines Ayers involvement as a fugitive from the law, and unrepentant terrorist. Logic tells us things didn't happen that way, especially given the fact that Annenberg's politics are 100% the opposite of Ayers.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhhahahaha, so now we're right back to the "don't vote for Obama because he is a Muslim" argument.

A beautiful, full, predictable circle. Oh how patently racist you people can be.

Where is the "cookoo" emoticon when you need it? No one called Obama a muslim. Louis Farakhan called him the Messiah.

If you have a problem with Louis Farakhan, that's a reasonable reaction, I suppose. But I didn't see anyone call him a Muslim. He hasn't been a Muslim since he was a much younger man. That might be why Farakhan supports him, because he knows Obama probably would not act unfavorably towards Muslims due to his past with the religion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

None of the science Nobels have ever been given out based on liberal ideologies.

I don't claim that your opinion on this is a "lie" or even wrong. Such a thing is harder to determine due to the subject matter, and not being exposed to the scientists on a regular basis to know their politics. Absent any evidence that Nobel has shown bias, then an opinion that they have without evidence wouldn't be credible. Given the fact that Nobel HAS shown bias in that can easily be seen in other areas, I don't think it's unreasonable to question just where Nobel stops discriminating based on politics.

To my knowledge none of the science Nobelists' science has ever been seriously doubted. (Of course, all science is under continual revision.) To claim otherwise is dishonest. To claim otherwise and refuse to give any evidence for it is willfully dishonest. You need to give up your lies.

I claimed that I didn't know and that knowing wasn't required for my observation to be valid. I said that based on the observation I have had (and many others as well) that many of the Nobel prizes have been given for political reasons when there were much better candidate, it wouldn't surprise me that if you looked into the politics of all the awards that there's a big bias towards people with liberal ideologies. The fact that a huge number decided to get involved in a US Presidential election to support a left-wing candidate only further serves to drive home that impression.

Even more basic than logical standards in a debate are standards for honesty. You are a liar and you need to come clean. Then you can talk about "logical fallacies." I said before, I stand behind my posts. Do you?

Uh...yes, and when you challenge me I respond. But "standing behind my posts" isn't the same as giving you what you want when it isn't required to defend my position. It doesn't require me to jump through unnecessary hoops. You on the other hand engage in things like false accusations of being a "liar" which is worse than getting something wrong logically or not having all the facts. There's really nothing worse in a debate than being called a liar when the accuser can't show that the accused ever knowingly said something that know is false. That's the case here, and I'm sure you are just doing it from stress over not winning the debate, but I don't think that's a good justification for something so low and intellectually dishonest.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Did you not see the justification?

All evidence points to Annenberg's politics being diametrically opposed to those of Ayers.

I thought that charities were supposed to be apolitical. That's what Spacey just said. You're not only accusing Annenberg of violating that requirement, you're assuming that he violates it constantly, and in fact exhaustively. That's a pretty extreme claim. You know, in case you ever wonder why people call you an extremist. That's why.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In fact, Ayers gave multiple interviews in major news magazines during the time they were working together where he talks about his lack of repentance over being a terrorist and how he considers himself a communist.

If he gave multiple interviews in major news magazines, then it should have been obvious to anyone involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, whether they were accountants or not.

So, how was Ayers described in the materials given those on the board, where they had to "sign off"? What was the specific description of what Ayers wanted to do that included indoctrinating children in left-wing activism?

What? My point with Weber is that if, as you claim, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge funneled money to radical, left-wing organizations like ACORN, and Obama knew about it because he was a member of the CAC board, then logically Weber would have known about it, too.

Again, as long as Annenberg's employees did their job, there'd be no reason to worry. Annenberg wasn't an accountant and had people make sure that all the laws where applied reasonably. That still isn't evidence that Annenberg himself knew exactly where every dime was going or the political background of the members of academia the people vetting the grants where giving them to.

Again, you're putting barriers where none exist, legally. It's his responsibility unless you can prove to me that he abdicated that responsibility, just as, by your own standards, Obama's leadership position on the CAC board make CAC's subgrants Obama's responsibility.

It shouldn't be hard then to get this "basic bio" and point out where it outlines Ayers involvement as a fugitive from the law, and unrepentant terrorist.

You're correct. I believe that document, as part of the CAC proposal, would be at the Annenberg Foundation, or possibly the University of Illinois at Chicago. The proposal is probably available on request. You're welcome to look into it.

[Mrjinglesusa]

This is hilarious. Here's stupendousman again, crying "logical fallacy" and saying he's "winning the debate" when the only thing he's "proven" is that, in HIS OPINION, the political/working relationship between Obama and Ayers was somehow inappropriate and somehow demonstrates that Obama "supports terrorists". He's interpreting facts to suit his position and not looking at them objectively, which is in and of itself intellectually dishonest.

FACT: Ayers was involved in an anti-war group 40 years ago that was implicated in bombing federal buildings. No one has argued that this is not true.

FACT: Ayers, at the time he first met Obama, was a respected educator and citizen of Chicago (whether he was respected by conservatives is disputable, but unlikely). But it is nonetheless a fact, provable by him being awarded Citizen of the Year (EDIT: Actually, for the sake of keeping this factual, Ayers was awarded the Citizen of the Year in 1997, after he first met Obama).

FACT: There is NO EVIDENCE that Obama knew of Ayers' past activists activities when he first met him (although it is likely he did, but this cannot be proven). It's not as if Ayers would say, "Hello, I'm Bill, I was involved in violent anti-war activism in the late 60's. Nice to meet you."

FACT: Obama was invited to Ayers' house for a political function and went to Ayers' house.

FACT: Obama and Ayers were on one or more education panels together (Ayers is, after all, an educator who has written and edited numerous books on the subject).

FACT: Obama gave a positive review of one of Ayers' books.

FACT: There is NO EVIDENCE of any contact between these two men since about 2002.

So, based on the above facts, stupendousman has come to the conclusion that Obama supported a terrorist. And everyone here (myself included) has been trying to argue that his conclusion is false. However, stupendousman has carefully set up a "debate" that cannot be won. No one can argue the facts because there is plenty of documentation to support them. All that is left is how one interprets those facts.

Personally, when I look at the above facts I say "BIG F***ING DEAL". Especially since Obama has PUBLICLY denounced the actions Ayers took over 40 years ago and there is no evidence that Obama's political views have been influenced by Ayers in any way, shape, or form. Obama may be a liberal, but there is NO EVIDENCE that he is a leftist radical as stupendousman would have us believe.

Since stupendousman and others like to take quotes Ayers made out of context to say he's an "unrepentent terrorist", here are some other quotes Ayers has made, in context.

Ayers knows a thing or two about the consequences of terrorism; he used to practice a form of it. Once he and co-conspirers detonated a pipe bomb in a little-trafficked corridor of the Pentagon, knocking out the building's computer system for several hours.

As a rule, the Weather Underground took care to strike when buildings were empty and phoned in warnings ahead of time. Still, press Ayers on the point, and he'll admit that they took some chances worth regretting and that anyone could have blundered down the wrong stairwell and made a murderer of him.

"I'm 56 years old," he begins, speaking in impassioned paragraphs like the college teacher he is today, "so I have a world of regrets to point to. But what I don't regret is throwing myself into this effort to end this one particular war, to bring about some sense of peace and justice, with every fiber of my being. I don't regret that. I think we were restrained, and by 'restrained' I mean we tried very hard not to do the scenario you just imagined. Had we done it, it would've been indefensible. There would be no way to defend the killing of an innocent person, even though our goals were just."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

BTW, those quotes were made a month BEFORE the oft-quoted 9/11/01 quote.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I claimed that I didn't know and that knowing wasn't required for my observation to be valid. I said that based on the observation I have had (and many others as well) that many of the Nobel prizes have been given for political reasons when there were much better candidate, it wouldn't surprise me that if you looked into the politics of all the awards that there's a big bias towards people with liberal ideologies. The fact that a huge number decided to get involved in a US Presidential election to support a left-wing candidate only further serves to drive home that impression.

That's a lie. I'll quote you once more.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The guys Nobel selects, sure. They have a history of picking people for lefist political reasons. This "open letter" is a prime example of the type of political posturing those guys do and the reason their "science" comes up for doubt. When you mix politics with the search for knowledge, you just get a bunch of bulls***.

You claimed that their science had come up for doubt, that it was in fact a bunch of bullshit. You also claimed that the Nobel science prizes were chosen for leftist political reasons. You gave zero evidence for any of these assertions. You well know that the peace prize is chosen by a different organization than the science prizes. Now you say, "Knowing wasn't required for my observation to be valid"???

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The Nobel laureates are selected by their respective committees. For the Prizes in Chemistry, Physics and Economics, a committee consists of five members elected by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences... for the Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee consists of five members elected by the Norwegian Storting (the Norwegian parliament).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought that charities were supposed to be apolitical. That's what Spacey just said.

I don't believe there's a requirement for charities not to reflect the political worldview of their benefactor, as long as the benefactor isn't using the charity to directly support one political candidate or party over another.

You're not only accusing Annenberg of violating that requirement, you're assuming that he violates it constantly, and in fact exhaustively. That's a pretty extreme claim. You know, in case you ever wonder why people call you an extremist. That's why.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If he gave multiple interviews in major news magazines, then it should have been obvious to anyone involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, whether they were accountants or not.

This was post challenge, but while Obama was still working with him and praising his radical leftist endeavors.

What? My point with Weber is that if, as you claim, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge funneled money to radical, left-wing organizations like ACORN, and Obama knew about it because he was a member of the CAC board, then logically Weber would have known about it, too.

Might have. I don't know. The guy in question was a Nixon aid. Nixon wasn't all that conservative. I know nothing about the Weber guy and as is my point, we really have no idea of who knew what in regards to where the money was going. I'm sure someone with the foundation knew for sure, but I don't think we have any way of knowing for sure who knew or at what level it was evident that the people in question where using the money for their leftist indoctrination. Logic tells us that a conservative republican wouldn't give millions of dollars to a leftwing radical, admitted communist and unrepentant terrorist in order to indoctrinate children with political propaganda. It's possible that someone on a lower level helped push Ayers to get support from the radical Chicago intellectual establishment for the challenge's implementation. When millions of dollars are involved, and lots of profit can be made, people will do devious things to ensure that the "right" people get the cash in their hands.

Again, you're putting barriers where none exist, legally. It's his responsibility unless you can prove to me that he abdicated that responsibility, just as, by your own standards, Obama's leadership position on the CAC board make CAC's subgrants Obama's responsibility.

Responsible and honest people abdicate their responsibility in the manner I outlined on a daily basis. It's called "delegation". It's my belief that Annenberg wasn't going to have the time or inclination to know where every dime of the money was going to in regards to such a complex endeavor, and trusted his lower level advisors and employees to oversea and implement it. It's his money, and there's no real evidence this wasn't the case in regards to Ayers. As long as his employees aren't doing anything illegal (and he has separate lawyers who see to that), then it's his decision how strictly he polices the distribution of money. He wouldn't be screwing anyone but himself as he's his own boss.

You're correct. I believe that document, as part of the CAC proposal, would be at the Annenberg Foundation, or possibly the University of Illinois at Chicago. The proposal is probably available on request. You're welcome to look into it.

I'm not the one making claims about Annenberg himself. The burden of proof is on you. I'm more than happy to stick to the subject where there is sufficient proof in regards to what CAC was involved with.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

This is hilarious. Here's stupendousman again, crying "logical fallacy" and saying he's "winning the debate" when the only thing he's "proven" is that, in HIS OPINION, the political/working relationship between Obama and Ayers was somehow inappropriate and somehow demonstrates that Obama "supports terrorists". He's interpreting facts to suit his position and not looking at them objectively, which is in and of itself intellectually dishonest.

Very funny. I really am short on time so I'm going to pick a couple of your choice "facts" to show you are guilty of the same thing you falsely accuse me of.

FACT: Obama was invited to Ayers' house for a political function and went to Ayers' house.

According to all involved who will speak on the record, the "political function" in question was a fund-raiser and political "coming out" party for Obama himself. The party was held in his honor. Not only that, but people claimed that in they generally socialized together, exchanged e-mails and had personal conversations in the neighborhood. All evidence points to them being "friends" and it not just being the case that Ayers was a guy who lived in Obama's neighborhhood as he has publicly (and dishonestly) inferred. The fact that you submit this "fact" without all the appropriate information shows you to be engaging in "interpreting facts to suit your position" as you accused me of.

FACT: Obama and Ayers were on one or more education panels together (Ayers is, after all, an educator who has written and edited numerous books on the subject).

At least one of which the Obama's where in charge of putting together.

The two facts we have here alone is enough to show that Ayers was more than just a guy who lives in Obama's neighborhood, as Obama lied about when questioned in regards to Ayers in the past. Why would Obama lie?

So, based on the above facts, stupendousman has come to the conclusion that Obama supported a terrorist.

Yes, years of associations and mutual support draws one to that conclusion reasonably.

And everyone here (myself included) has been trying to argue that his conclusion is false. However, stupendousman has carefully set up a "debate" that cannot be won. No one can argue the facts because there is plenty of documentation to support them. All that is left is how one interprets those facts.

Only if you choose to leave info out, can the interpretation be credibly anything other than I outline.

Personally, when I look at the above facts I say "BIG F***ING DEAL".

You're welcome to that opinion, as was the left-wing political/education establishment in Chicago. The problem for you and Obama is that most of America doesn't think that way. Most of the America does think it's a big deal when someone chooses as one of his peers a terrorist. Most of America wouldn't make Ayers "Citizen of the Year" for any reason. Especially since he should be in prison right now and would be if not for a technicality.

Especially since Obama has PUBLICLY denounced the actions Ayers took over 40 years ago and there is no evidence that Obama's political views have been influenced by Ayers in any way, shape, or form. Obama may be a liberal, but there is NO EVIDENCE that he is a leftist radical as stupendousman would have us believe.

The education "reforms" Ayers backed that were "leftist radical" that Obama helped to try and implement.

Since stupendousman and others like to take quotes Ayers made out of context to say he's an "unrepentent terrorist", here are some other quotes Ayers has made, in context.

The problem is, innocent people did die and many more barely escaped one of Ayer's bomb plots with their lives. The question is - who are the "innocent"? I'm sure in Ayer's eyes, the guys in the Pentagon are not "innocent", given his past statements. He wanted death and destruction.

[stupendousman]

You claimed that their science had come up for doubt, that it was in fact a bunch of bullshit.

Not at all. When you mix politics with the interpretation of facts (science), the result comes into doubt. You can't mix politics with science and not expect bias to creep in. That's the problem with a lot of the stuff in regards to climate change and the reason why many people don't trust the conclusions that some have come to. If you refute that there are people who doubt the conclusions some scientists have come to based on politics, you haven't been paying much attention.

You also claimed that the Nobel science prizes were chosen for leftist political reasons.

No, I didn't. Despite your insistence on falsely claiming that I lied about something that wasn't even untrue, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you just misread my statement or do not understand.

If you can show where either of the statements you quoted I specifically said that people who got "Nobel science prizes were chosen for leftist political reasons", you'd have a point. I never made such a claim. I claimed that Nobel had shown bias IN GENERAL and that in addition to the science winners interjecting themselves into liberal politics, it gives a rational person reason to doubt. I don't need to research a single science award winner to prove that. All I need to do is show a credible reason why someone might believe that Nobel has shown bias for any award. Then it's up to you or Nobel to explain when it is that Nobel "draws the line" between political posturing and honest appraisal of worth.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you can show where either of the statements you quoted I specifically said that people who got "Nobel science prizes were chosen for leftist political reasons", you'd have a point. I never made such a claim. I claimed that Nobel had shown bias IN GENERAL and that in addition to the science winners interjecting themselves into liberal politics, it gives a rational person reason to doubt. I don't need to research a single science award winner to prove that. All I need to do is show a credible reason why someone might believe that Nobel has shown bias for any award. Then it's up to you or Nobel to explain when it is that Nobel "draws the line" between political posturing and honest appraisal of worth.

(NOTE: I'm not involved in this thread, and I don't wish to be. I'm just posting on this little bit I'm interested in, and I'll begone. )

He already did. He showed that all your claims (such as they were) for "liberal bias" were founded on the Nobel Peace Prize award, which he then demonstrated was bestowed by a different organization.

It's now up to you to show that your claims for a "liberal bias" is also applicable to the Nobel Prize. And no, that Open Letter doesn't cut it, because it merely shows that some recipients support the Democrats this election. It doesn't show how many support Republicans, or how many normally support Republicans but are supporting Democrats this election, or how many don't vote at all but feel that the Democrats' policies specifically on science and/or education are the most preferred for their line of work.

You've got your work cut out for you. But let's be honest, you're not going to do it anyway, are you.

greg

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Very funny. I really am short on time so I'm going to pick a couple of your choice "facts" to show you are guilty of the same thing you falsely accuse me of.

Guilty of what exactly? I accuse you of forming your opinion that Obama is a supporter of a terrorist based on a political/working relationship with a man that, at the time, was a respected educator in Chicago who was subsequently awarded Citizen of the Year in Chicago. I am CLEARLY not guilty of the same thing.

According to all involved who will speak on the record, the "political function" in question was a fund-raiser and political "coming out" party for Obama himself. The party was held in his honor. Not only that, but people claimed that in they generally socialized together, exchanged e-mails and had personal conversations in the neighborhood. All evidence points to them being "friends" and it not just being the case that Ayers was a guy who lived in Obama's neighborhhood as he has publicly (and dishonestly) inferred. The fact that you submit this "fact" without all the appropriate information shows you to be engaging in "interpreting facts to suit your position" as you accused me of.

No, the other information you provided has no bearing on my position. All that extra information? I say again, "BIG F***ING DEAL".

At least one of which the Obama's where in charge of putting together.

So? Obama sought to place a respected educator on his panel on education reform. I say again, "BIG F***ING DEAL".

The two facts we have here alone is enough to show that Ayers was more than just a guy who lives in Obama's neighborhood, as Obama lied about when questioned in regards to Ayers in the past. Why would Obama lie?

Because people like you will misinterpret the political/working relationship he had with Ayers. It's not a big deal to people with half a brain, but right-wing zealots will use it to discredit Obama (as has clearly happened).

Yes, years of associations and mutual support draws one to that conclusion reasonably.

Errr, no it does not. Years of association and mutual support for education reform does NOT draw one to the conclusion that "Obama supports a terrorist". You are taking two separate periods of a man's life, periods separated by 25-30 years, and tying them together. You are saying that what Ayers was involved in 25-30 years prior to his involvement in education reform are related. They are not. Obama's "support" for Ayers and Ayer's "support" for Obama was in education reform and was political. It had nothing to do with Ayer's activities over 40 years ago.

Only if you choose to leave info out, can the interpretation be credibly anything other than I outline.

Again, as I have pointed out, the other information is not pertinent to the logical interpretation that Obama and Ayers had a working/political relationship that had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Ayers was involved in over 40 years ago.

You're welcome to that opinion, as was the left-wing political/education establishment in Chicago. The problem for you and Obama is that most of America doesn't think that way. Most of the America does think it's a big deal when someone chooses as one of his peers a terrorist. Most of America wouldn't make Ayers "Citizen of the Year" for any reason. Especially since he should be in prison right now and would be if not for a technicality.

Most of America clearly wants to focus on the ISSUES, not play guilt by association games. That's why this whole Obama/Ayers has had NO EFFECT on Obama's standings in the polls.

The education "reforms" Ayers backed that were "leftist radical" that Obama helped to try and implement.

Liberal, yes. "Leftist radical"? No.

The problem is, innocent people did die and many more barely escaped one of Ayer's bomb plots with their lives. The question is - who are the "innocent"? I'm sure in Ayer's eyes, the guys in the Pentagon are not "innocent", given his past statements. He wanted death and destruction.

No, as can be clearly seen from the quotes I provided (quotes that the right-wing zealots conveniently ignore) Ayers did NOT want death. He took steps to AVOID loss of life and stated that if someone had died, it would be "indefensible". Can you provide a link supporting your assertion that innocent people "did die"? The fact that people "could have died" is not sufficient. No one did.

BTW, even the LEAD PROSECUTOR in Ayer's case is "pleased to learn" he has become a "responsible citizen". You want to lump him in with the "left-wing political/education establishment in Chicago" too?

http://nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/l10ayers.html

[Mrjinglesusa]

Attacking Obama for his association with Bill Ayers -- the unrepentant Vietnam-era terrorist who should have been jailed four decades ago for bombing New York City Police Headquarters, the United States Capitol building, and the Pentagon -- is a legitimate tactic. So is asking questions regarding the influence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's controversial pastor.

The problem is that few voters care about what happened 40 years ago when in the last few weeks they have seen their savings and retirements and possibly their jobs and homes going up in flames. If you don't talk to voters about their concerns they will not spend one minute listening to you in the closing days of a campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ame/index.html

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

He already did. He showed that all your claims (such as they were) for "liberal bias" were founded on the Nobel Peace Prize award, which he then demonstrated was bestowed by a different organization.

It was bestowed by the SAME organization, but it had different judges. The claim was that I stated definitively that the science awards where granted via bias, which I didn't say. I said that given the facts, it could be reasonable to wonder if they were and give people doubt. With all the political machinations involved with the awards in general, at some point you have to wonder where they "draw the line".

It's now up to you to show that your claims for a "liberal bias" is also applicable to the Nobel Prize. And no, that Open Letter doesn't cut it, because it merely shows that some recipients support the Democrats this election.

It adds to the appearance that politics is involved, because it is. Just as Gore's pick was political when there were hundreds of more people deserving of a "peace prize". At some point, assurances that only some things are mired in politics, but others are sacrosanct, doesn't really cut it. If you choose politics, that's what you'll be known for.

You've got your work cut out for you. But let's be honest, you're not going to do it anyway, are you.

greg

I've already outlined what I claimed. It simply required a reason for doubt. That's there, and I've shown that others agree. You are welcome to disagree about the observation, but it doesn't require me any further evidence, unlike false claims I "lied" about anything .

[Chongo]

Do I hear a little advocating RoW?
Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’

[stupendousman]

Whoops...there they go again. This time, not for Peace or Literature...and I had no part in the publication of this editorial. This guy is apparently a "liar" too?

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Pity The Prize

"Pity The Prize
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 13, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Economics: In a bit of a surprise, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman won the 2008 Nobel prize for economics. Makes us wonder: Is this another step in the ongoing politicization of a once-prestigious award?"

[hyteckit]

Who is Barack Obama?

An Arab? A Muslim? A HUSSEIN? A terrorist? He is that one, and not one of us. He sees America differently from us, and goes palling around with terrorist.

Well, that's why McCain's campaign is trying to reenforce.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-u..._b_134072.html

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Who is Barack Obama?

An Arab?

No. No one on McCain's team ever suggested or inferred.

A Muslim?

No. No one on McCain's team ever suggested or inferred. People do though suspect on their own due to his name, the fact that he used to be a Muslim, and his support from racist Louis Farakhan.

A HUSSEIN?

That's his middle name, right? Could you post where McCain's team even used his middle name? It is on his birth certificate right? You have seen his birth certificate....right?

A terrorist?

No. Does he show support for people who where terrorists? Of course. That's not McCain's fault. That's due to Obama's poor judgement.

He is that one, and not one of us. He sees America differently from us, and goes palling around with terrorist.

Yes. All true.

Well, that's why McCain's campaign is trying to reenforce.

If Obama worried more about all the things in the last set of accusations that were true, he wouldn't have to worry so much about what people thought his intentions where.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-u..._b_134072.html

A sample from the vapid editorial linked:

But he has answered every ridiculous question on this topic a hundred times over. So, what are they really looking for?

Could you please post for me when Obama has answered the question about when he found out about Ayers criminal, terrorist past? Oh..you mean no one in the media has bothered to ask him that question? Wow......just...wow.

The only "answer" I've ever seen him give is the phony one about how he wasn't responsible for what Ayers did when Obama was eight years old, totally side-stepping the issue revolving around the fact that he choose him as a peer, co-worker and friend as an adult at a time when Ayers was unrepentant and should have been in prison. That is when he supplies an answer that doesn't simply dishonestly label Ayers as some guy who happens to live in his neighborhood.

Based on the evidence, it would be the media's job to find out what Obama is hiding. The fact that they allow him to answer dishonestly and don't further press the issue means that McCain has to. All Obama has to do is stop lying and the questions will stop. Pointing out the fact that Obama shows poor judgement likely won't, but at least Obama can't be accused of further lying about his past.

[Indecision08]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People do though suspect on their own due to his name, the fact that he used to be a Muslim, and his support from racist Louis Farakhan.

Obama is a Christian. Where/when has McCain ever publicly acknowledged that? Did he include it in the refutation of the suggestion that Obama was an Arab?
Obama didn't used to be a Muslim. What do you base that assertion on?
Just for the record, Obama has denounced and rejected Farrakhan several times. He said it in his denunciation of Wright and he said it earlier during the primary debates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4EKY7rCF_c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4pcZ2u8h_g

[Chongo]

just for the record Farrakhan calls him the Messiah

[Indecision08]

Chongo: just for the record.

You posted that link in this thread already. Was it really necessary to repost it? Do you often let Farrakhan inform your opinions?

Does it really say anything about Obama? Is he now responsible for anything any nutjob says about him even if he distances himself from that person and denounces the comments made by that person?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Indecision08 

Chongo: just for the record.

You posted that link in this thread already. Was it really necessary to repost it? Do you often let Farrakhan inform your opinions?

Does it really say anything about Obama? Is he now responsible for anything any nutjob says about him even if he distances himself from that person and denounces the comments made by that person?

Yes, it was. It says a lot about those that support BO.

Obama Youth - Junior Fraternity Regiment
I believe someone else, not BO, is call the "alpha omega"