[stevesnj]

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

What a crazy woman! Seems the McCain ticket is getting desperate.

[hyteckit]

Of course Obama is a terrorist. He is a Muslim and his middle name is Hussien.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Of course Obama is a terrorist. He is a Muslim and his middle name is Hussien.

it's called fear mongering. it's been the staple of the Republican party for at least 8 years now. it appeals to simple minds.

[stupendousman]

It's called "Obama has spent his life surrounded by unrepented terrorists and America-haters".

It's clear the truth hurts. Are you saying that Barry should be ashamed of his lack of class for associating with these people?

[Eug]

Hmmm... It really does sound like the McCain/Palin camp is getting desperate.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Of course Obama is a terrorist. He is a Muslim and his middle name is Hussien.

It's Hussein. Get your terrorist names correct!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... It really does sound like the McCain/Palin camp is getting desperate

Yes. When the media chooses not to do it's job, and in fact engages in malpractice via it's corruption, people get desperate to make sure the facts are known. Are you saying that Obama has not chosen to befriend unrepentent terrorists and America-haters? Or are you just using the "desperate" tag because you yourself are desperate due to not being able to defend a guy who allows these types of people to have important places in their lives?

[Big Mac]

The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win. The McCain campaign is obligated to do everything within the letter of the law to prevent him from winning.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The McCain campaign is obligated to do everything within the letter of the law to prevent him from winning.

Yeah, of course they're going to try prevent their rival from winning. It's just that they seem to be getting desperate and shrill in their methods.

If they have to resort to stuff like that, it looks like they don't have better material to work with. This will serve to get a collective "meh" from the electorate, except for those who would have never voted for Obama in the first place.

[Dork.]

I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention today. Is this just about Ayers again, or is there something else more concrete that's been uncovered? Because I think we know everything there is to know about Obama and Ayers, and there ain't much there.

Edit: Nope, it seems like it's the same stuff we heard a few months ago. Boring. Can't we dig up fresh dirt on anyone?

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...4932E920081004

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win. The McCain campaign is obligated to do everything within the letter of the law to prevent him from winning.

So in your opinion, am I morally bound to kill Palin since I think she's even worse and will do worse damage to the country? I don't think you can absolve yourself of doing bad things with the excuse, "Hey, I just wanted to get the right person in office."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention today. Is this just about Ayers again, or is there something else more concrete that's been uncovered? Because I think we know everything there is to know about Obama and Ayers, and there ain't much there.

You're right. All we have evidence is that Obama agreed to allow a known unrepentant terrorist introduce him to the political establishment in his home and continued to associate with the terrorist in question for years.

No biggie...really.

[Dork.]

Isn't Ayers a professor and community activist now? Is anyone who takes his class or lives in his community associated with a "known unrepentant terrorist" now?

(And I thought the Chicago Political Establishment was too big to fit in anyone's home.... )

[Eug]

How dare Obama buy a home in Chicago!

Anyways, I don't think anyone in the US should be allowed to become president. This is a country that refuses to jail that alleged terrorist Ayers, and thus all of the US complicit in his crimes. The US government should be disbanded, and the land should be split evenly between Mexico and Canada.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So in your opinion, am I morally bound to kill Palin since I think she's even worse and will do worse damage to the country? I don't think you can absolve yourself of doing bad things with the excuse, "Hey, I just wanted to get the right person in office."

I guess you missed it when I said the McCain campaign needs to do "everything within the letter of the law" to prevent him from getting elected. The rhetorical scenario you propose would be illegal and is a strawman. I expect better from you, Chuckit.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Isn't Ayers a professor and community activist now? Is anyone who takes his class or lives in his community associated with a "known unrepentant terrorist" now?

(And I thought the Chicago Political Establishment was too big to fit in anyone's home.... )

Lives in his community? Probably not. I wouldn't take a course taught by a known terrorist. I certainly wouldn't allow him to invite me into his home so that he could help introduce me to his politically active radical friends. That's below a lack of "class".

[lpkmckenna]

The GOP has realized that they can't win. So, the election has become a social experiment. How far can we go? How low can we go?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The GOP has realized that they can't win. So, the election has become a social experiment. How far can we go? How low can we go?

That makes almost no sense.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win. The McCain campaign is obligated to do everything within the letter of the law to prevent him from winning.

Sounds like George W. Bush. Next thing I know you're going to tell me he's a conservative.

[hyteckit]

US needs to invade the US for harboring known terrorist such as Ayers. Lets bomb Texas.

[SpaceMonkey]

I think you mean bomb Chicago? I'm game.

I'm now so glad that I decided not to go to Chicago for grad school, lest I potentially reside in close proximity to a known unrepentant terrorist.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think you mean bomb Chicago? I'm game.

I'm now so glad that I decided not to go to Chicago for grad school, lest I potentially reside in close proximity to a known unrepentant terrorist.

Well, you do live in Washington. Lots of embassies there. Even the French are there. I would have thought Washington would have kicked the French out long ago when Freedom Fries were introduced. The fact that the French are still there and you still live there too is shameful.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhhahahahaha, this thread is absolutely hilarious.

So much McCarthyism! I love it!

greg

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Sounds like George W. Bush. Next thing I know you're going to tell me he's a conservative.

Huh? That response doesn't follow from what I wrote at all, so I honestly don't even know how to parse it. Do you mean I sound like President George W. Bush, or do you mean my characterization of Obama would be how you would characterize G.W.B? And who am I going to tell you is a conservative?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I guess you missed it when I said the McCain campaign needs to do "everything within the letter of the law" to prevent him from getting elected. The rhetorical scenario you propose would be illegal and is a strawman. I expect better from you, Chuckit.

So your argument is that legality and morality are identical?

[ort888]

"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

Interesting statement from someone who has palled around with people who want to secede from the USA.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So your argument is that legality and morality are identical?

No, it's not. My argument is that in a critical election that could have ramifications for our country that extend far into the future, the McCain campaign should employ every tactic that is lawful to prevent BHO from ascending to the Presidency. For the record, I think labeling Obama as a friend of terrorists is a legitimate attack. There is more than enough evidence that he and Ayers are friends. If he wants to correct the record by repudiating Ayers, let him do so. (There is also evidence linking him to Arab radicals, but I'll save that for another thread.)

Originally Posted by ort888 

Interesting statement from someone who has palled around with people who want to secede from the USA.

Nothing of consequence could ever come from the Alaskan secession movement, nor from Todd Palin's association therewith. But BHO's association with leftist radicals, including one who is to this day proud of his acts of domestic terrorism, are very serious indeed. The associations speak to BHO's radicalism, his lax moral standards and his general lack of concern for security of the United States. I agree with Governor Palin that someone with such links should not be a serious contender for Presidency; I think there are many other substantive reasons to disqualify him beyond that.

[ort888]

What are these substantive reasons?

Do you think maybe Obama is just running for president so that he and his Weather Underground cronies will finally have access to the biggest bombs of all? A full blown nuclear arsenal that they can turn on the united states itself as the ultimate punishment for being such a terrible country???

[SpaceMonkey]

FWIW, here is the September 11, 2001 New York Times article that seems to be the source of all comments on Bill Ayers' supposed unrepentant feelings:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

And here is Ayers' rebuttal, in the form of a letter to the editor dated September 15, 2001:

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/...mes-9-15-2001/

Not that either necessarily reflect his views today.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What are these substantive reasons?

Do you think maybe Obama is just running for president so that he and his Weather Underground cronies will finally have access to the biggest bombs of all? A full blown nuclear arsenal that they can turn on the united states itself as the ultimate punishment for being such a terrible country???

You again. Of course they really don't think that. They're just using whatever ammunition they've got. Was the guy ever tried & convicted of crimes? Did he serve his time? Has he broken the law since? I really don't know much about it other than a long time before he met Obama, he was a member of the Weather Underground, and that some 20 years later, they ended up on the same board of directors. Quite a few people were members of the Weaher Underground that never actually bombed anything, or hurt anybody. I know folks who were in theSDS in their foolish youth. They grew up. Seems pretty flimsy to me, but if it'll swing some votes McCain's way, then let 'er rip. I s'pose Obama could have refused to serve on the board with him, or asked that he be removed, if the guy was still advocating violent overthrow of the government. I doubt that he was, though, or why would he be on a community board of directors? Sounds like the guy took a change of direction once he grew up.

Edit; Okay, I went back & read the articles closely. They got nuthin'. Won't stop 'em from trying, though.

[Face Ache]

Pathetic

(yet crazy enough to work in the US).

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's called "Obama has spent his life surrounded by unrepented terrorists and America-haters".

It's clear the truth hurts. Are you saying that Barry should be ashamed of his lack of class for associating with these people?

Please elaborate and clarify this "truth" you speak of.

[Paco500]

At what point do you think the rats will start fleeing the sinking ship? We've already had quite a few principled conservatives speaking out against the McCain debacle (and Karl Rove), but when do you suppose the rank and file running in contested seats will start distancing and speaking out against this freakshow? When will the cheerleaders on this board start saying McCain was the wrong choice?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Huh? That response doesn't follow from what I wrote at all, so I honestly don't even know how to parse it. Do you mean I sound like President George W. Bush, or do you mean my characterization of Obama would be how you would characterize G.W.B? And who am I going to tell you is a conservative?

It does follow; you wrote "The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win," which we did when we elected George W. Bush. He's no conservative.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It does follow; you wrote "The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win," which we did when we elected George W. Bush. He's no conservative.

Thinly credentialed maybe, but Bush was at least a two term governor. And you're right, he isn't a true conservative, but he's not a "leftist radical." Therefore, that response to what I wrote did not compute.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

At what point do you think the rats will start fleeing the sinking ship?

I don't know. Despite not even being up over the aggregate 6 points he needs to get over the "Bradley Effect" in the currently rigged polls (see the Newsbuster analysis that I've posted earlier), people still say they'll vote for Obama. I guess once the real heavy hitting starts and his total record of left-wing radicalism gets exposed, people will start to jump ship.

We've already had quite a few principled conservatives speaking out against the McCain debacle (and Karl Rove), but when do you suppose the rank and file running in contested seats will start distancing and speaking out against this freakshow? When will the cheerleaders on this board start saying McCain was the wrong choice?

What freakshow? McCain isn't the guy so out of touch with the mainstream that he'd allow a terrorist bomber to be one of his political mentors. THAT is the type of thing that amounts to a "freakshow".

I sense the fear in your words. Be calm. All will be well in a little over a month.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"lol"

[ort888]

Speaking of freakshows...

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The people want to elect a thinly credentialed radical leftist who would inflict great (and likely lasting) harm to the country were he to win. The McCain campaign is obligated to do everything within the letter of the law to prevent him from winning.

We'll I'm certainly ecstatic that the McCain campaign is trying to protect a stupid electorate from being hoodwinked into voting for a radical leftist who's going to harm the country. When he takes office, I suppose he'll immediately declare a socialist state and every agenda he favors will immediately become law, because, y'know, being President means you are actually King and just make decrees. Somehow, his radical leftist agenda will be advanced because, in addition to him, a majority of Congress will also turn out to secretly be radical leftists too and will support America-hating and terrorist loving.

Seriously. What do you expect Obama will be able to do without a majority support of the Congress ? And anything that is too radical for 2/3 of congress can be forcibly overridden by congress. Has America, district by district and state by state, voted for closet radicals such that they'll all just "activate" once Obama comes in to power? 2/3 of the Senate have been voted in to power in 2004 and 2006 and only 1/3 will be fresh in 2008. It's mathematically impossible for Obama to force a "radical" agenda on the US unless, over the next two election cycles, the bulk of the states and districts fill up congress with a majority of radicals. But, if such a majority is created, the "radical" agenda no longer can be defined as radical, but would by definition become mainstream.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Speaking of freakshows...

Thanks for your timely contribution.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So in your opinion, am I morally bound to kill Palin since I think she's even worse and will do worse damage to the country? I don't think you can absolve yourself of doing bad things with the excuse, "Hey, I just wanted to get the right person in office."

But, he's not saying "Hey, I just wanted to get the right person in office."

He's saying "Hey, I just wanted to keep the wrong person out of office". This is what this form of campaigning leads to; don't tell voters why they should vote for you, tell them why they *shouldn't* vote for your opponent. This was never more obvious than when Palin complained the Couric kept asking questions about her position on issues rather than ask her what was wrong with Obama.

[Wiskedjak]

From the article:

Palin cited an article in Saturday's New York Times about Obama's relationship with Ayers, now 63. But that article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.

[stupendousman]

"Debunked" As in...DEFENDED and taken a side in an attempt to protect him.

No one has said that they were beer drinking buddies who shared clothes and exchanged Christmas cards. These publications are engaged in a strawman fallacy.

The fact is that Obama has/had no problem working with, associating and being represented by a known unrepentant terrorist - even accepting an invitation to his home for a party in his honor. That is something that their sad excuse for "journalism" does not "debunk" and is why they can not be trusted to report the facts anymore.

In - the - tank.

[Eug]

Like I said, this at best will get a Meh. from the greater electorate. The only people that seem to care are people who would have never voted for Obama in the first place.

McCain and Palin are wasting their time on this. In fact, I do have to wonder about their judgement for bringing this up again. If anything, I could see it backfiring, and send a small portion of the electorate voting the other way.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You know what?

I honestly thought stupendous and Big Mac were joking at first.

I'm honestly flummoxed. I don't even know what to say. It is, really, like the 1950s all over again. "The land of the free," and someone who might've "associated with" a person with radical views is being castigated for this?

I can't even believe it, to be honest. I can't even believe what I'm reading here.

greg

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm honestly flummoxed. I don't even know what to say. It is, really, like the 1950s all over again. "The land of the free," and someone who might've "associated with" a person with radical views is being castigated for this?

Are you so naive as to think that radical cooties can't jump from one person to another simply by being in the same room with them? I for one immediately, automatically, and permanently adopt the viewpoints of those who are in close proximity to me. If I work with someone on a specific project, I then embrace and support every other thing they've done in their lives and agree with every opinion they've held since before I met them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Debunked" As in...DEFENDED and taken a side in an attempt to protect him.

No one has said that they were beer drinking buddies who shared clothes and exchanged Christmas cards. These publications are engaged in a strawman fallacy.

The fact is that Obama has/had no problem working with, associating and being represented by a known unrepentant terrorist - even accepting an invitation to his home for a party in his honor. That is something that their sad excuse for "journalism" does not "debunk" and is why they can not be trusted to report the facts anymore.

In - the - tank.

It was not just a "party" It was a fund raiser and official kick off for his Illinois Senate campaign.
O' Bama worked for Ayres as well

At its founding, the Annenberg Challenge was made up of three constituent parts:

* The Chicago School Reform Collaborative, co-chaired by William C. Ayers;
* a Board of Directors initially recruited by the Collaborative, which was chaired from 1995 to 2000 by Barack O' Bama[4], at the time a practicing attorney.
* The Chicago Schools Research Consortium, a research arm of the Challenge.

This is more than an association, it has been, until recently, a working relationship.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

Are you so naive as to think that radical cooties can't jump from one person to another simply by being in the same room with them? I for one immediately, automatically, and permanently adopt the viewpoints of those who are in close proximity to me. If I work with someone on a specific project, I then embrace and support every other thing they've done in their lives and agree with every opinion they've held since before I met them.

Well, Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field doesn't count.

That would affect anyone. I must admit I've suffered the same fate sometimes, and I've never even been in the same room as Jobs.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Let's face it: if Steve can make you buy a Macbook Air, you've got no hope of resisting the communist urge to Destroy America

[Eug]

So far I've avoided the temptation for a MacBook Air. After actually looking at the price and trying one out in the store, reality came crashing back in.

So even the RDF is fallible, and NOTHING is as strong as the Jobsian RDF.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What are these substantive reasons?

Do you think maybe Obama is just running for president so that he and his Weather Underground cronies will finally have access to the biggest bombs of all? A full blown nuclear arsenal that they can turn on the united states itself as the ultimate punishment for being such a terrible country???

No, I do not think that. But your questions remind me of what was said about President Bush and his "cronies" getting power.