<snipped>. You're more than welcome to provide a legitimate source to support this, however I suspect that you'll opt to provide a crappy source instead.

(hint: he started his political campaign in a Ramada Inn).

Query: what was your source.

...Smerconish said his callers wanted to know about Obama's trip to Ayers' home in 1995 to discuss his pending state senate run: why go to his house to begin with?--Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/10/will-msm-challenge-obama-assumption-bill-ayers-was-rehabilitated)



Obama and Ayers didn't meet in 2001, so I don't know what your point is.


And I suppose Ayers didn't give a $200 contribution to Obama either? (Rhetorical question) They were in contact with each other all the way back in 1995 at the very least.


If I meet someone, work with them for several years, and then find out Thing X about them, it doesn't make any sense to argue that I knew Thing X the whole time.

Ordinarily you'd be correct but you're not a politician that has to worry about damage control on a regular basis.


So, yes, "I didn't know about it" seems perfectly reasonable, even in light of the 2001 quote.

You mean to tell me he never read the print media from Chicago where he lives? Chicago Magazine/August-2001 (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/)

And here is an article from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B) 63)


And why are we to assume that Obama read those magazine interviews, saw Ayers on TV, etc? The men served together on a board. It's not like they were sleeping together.

Normally a politician or a staff member would be watching this if the candidate didn't. Again it's called damage control.


Have you ever served on a board? It's not a 8-hour per day, 40-hour per week, day in and day out kinda thing. It's some phone calls and a couple of meeting each month. I served on one board with the same people for 2 years and only had face-to-face contact with 2 or 3 members more than 10 times. What "serving on a board together" is and what you seem to make it want to sound like are two completely separate things.

Did you provide money to a fellow board member's pet project or draw up the rules with another member of that board?


And the last time I checked (a few posts ago), you couldn't tell me when you last checked :dozey:

Really I don't have to, I'm an employee not their manager. A situation like that is a manager's canary or some other executive's canary.


1) Smart bombs aren't as precise as you seem to want to suggest they are. 2) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions isn't the topic. 3) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions has nothing to do with whether or not McCain ever flew mission that involve bombing villages.

So you're accusing a man of deliberately trying to bomb civilians with absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever. Look, I'm not sure how many veterans would feel the same way but I imagine my grandfather (whom is now regretably deceased) whom served in World War II, would have decked you by now.


You can use what ever analogy you'd like. It's not going to change the fundamentals of my argument. Military action against civilians is terrorism.

And I consider your analogy to be a personal attack on military veterans, and my deceased grandfather because he fought in World War II.


No he didn't. How many people died or were injured by the bombs set by the Weather Underground? Please tell me precisely how many men, women, and/or children Bill Ayers has killed.

I'd have to try to dig up the case file, assuming I can find it online, but if you had listened to Sean Hannity at all, you would have seen the interviews with the FBI Agent that had infiltrated the Weather Underground. I think I remember 2 police officers were killed but that's just off the top of my head. Also even if he ended up missing the target several times, it wasn't from a lack of trying.

Look up John Murtaugh he was a kid at the time when Weather Underground firebombed his house. They narrowly escaped getting killed.

Hot Air Blog Archive with Video from Interview on Fox News (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/03/video-john-murtaugh-on-weather-underground-attempt-on-his-life/)

You think something like that is okay?

OK, this will be opened in the morning since neither jonathan7 nor I are available to deal with this overnight.

Here's the ground rules on this thread: All Ayers discussion will now go here, because we staff are a little tired of the Ayers arguments being vomited all over any Obama threads that get started, taking discussion off topic by people pro and con. However, we did not want to cut off discussion on Ayers entirely, hence this thread.

We're not going to discuss Ayers in any further threads unless Ayers does something new that turns out to be newsworthy. Any future posts on Ayers in other threads will be deleted as spam. You are free to test our willingness to delete these posts as spam, however, we will feel free to infract accordingly.

NO FLAMING HERE. If you don't want to discuss the Ayers issue in a civil manner, find any of the hundreds of other threads here where you can discuss issues with civility. In fact, one of the reasons for this thread is so that you can completely ignore the Ayers issue if it bothers you that much by simply not reading this thread. If you wish to read this thread and something angers you, you are free to make whatever finger gestures and loud griping that you wish at your monitor. As long as you don't type flaming comments in and then hit the 'post reply' button, we'll all be just fine.

Furthermore, the Ayers controversy has resulted in more reported posts on both sides of the fence than probably any other subject, and most of the reports were for things that were not against the rules. If you're tempted to report a post, make sure it actually breaks the rules. We don't want to hear pointless whining about how someone disagrees with your ideas or that you don't like someone's sources. The report post feature is for when someone violates the rules, and is not the LF equivalent of complaining "Mom!!! My little sister is looking at me funny!!" Civil disagreement is not against the rules. Liberalism is not against the rules. Conservatism is not against the rules. If you throw out sources from either the far left or the far right, expect people to call you on the bias, as long as they do it respectfully.

Carry on with the Ayers discussion here.

Thread - re-opened; follow Jae's instructions -- j7

I don't suppose the fact that Ayers turned himself in, and had the charges against him dropped means anything?

It means he had a really good lawyer, the police screwed up the investigation of the case, or both. Ayers has admitted to setting bombs. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B) 63&scp=1&sq=sep%2011%20ayers&st=cse)

Oh noes, the man set up bombs forty years ago! Get over it, seriously, the man made major mistakes, and now he's turned himself in. The man is a college professor, meaning he mostlikely holds a doctorate in the subject he teaches, and for the past forty years, insofar as I know, he has observed and followed the laws of our country. "We didn't do enough" is a very, very vague statement, and it could mean a number of things. Thusly, it comes down to what he says it means, not what you say it means. I am very, very sorry, but if anyone has credibility about what Ayers means when he says something, it's Ayers, because, guess what?

He's Ayers!

In terms of credibility regarding the thoughts, actions, and statements of William Ayers, when it comes down to you or Ayers, Ayers beats you hands down. You have never met the man, and the only things you know about him are based on a media gambit to sully Obama's good name. You have no viable evidence to support your claims, and are at this point throwing around accusations and insults to further an already dying point of argument. Calling him a terrorist is laughable, because you have yet to honestly prove any of this shameless libel with viable sources.

Oh noes, the man set up bombs forty years ago! Get over it, seriously, the man made major mistakes, and now he's turned himself in. The man is a college professor, meaning he mostlikely holds a doctorate in the subject he teaches, and for the past forty years, insofar as I know, he has observed and followed the laws of our country. "We didn't do enough" is a very, very vague statement, and it could mean a number of things. Thusly, it comes down to what he says it means, not what you say it means. I am very, very sorry, but if anyone has credibility about what Ayers means when he says something, it's Ayers, because, guess what?

He's Ayers!
I was clarifying for Astor that Ayers had admitted to setting the bombs, and should have quoted Astor's post to be specific about that. My apologies for the confusion on that, and let me state one more time for the record: I do not accuse Obama of terrorism, nor do I say Obama's judgment is in question because he associates with someone who has had a criminal past. I have a friend who's been arrested in the past repeatedly for male prostitution and drug use but who now holds down a job and contributes positively to society. It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and prostitute myself (and yes, feel free to laugh hysterically at the very idea of Jae being a streetwalker), nor does it mean we share the same views on sex.

In terms of credibility regarding the thoughts, actions, and statements of William Ayers, when it comes down to you or Ayers, Ayers beats you hands down. You have never met the man, and the only things you know about him are based on a media gambit to sully Obama's good name. etc, etc, etc.
Let me switch gears at this point and address this as a moderator: this is a post you had written last night that had been deleted by jonathan7, and which you re-posted verbatim after you had been told to re-write it in a way that wasn't flame-baiting. You've earned a 3-day time-out from Kavar's/Senate for violating Kavar's rules and moderator actions.

It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and prostitute myself (and yes, feel free to laugh hysterically at the very idea of Jae being a streetwalker), nor does it mean we share the same views on sex.

Done. :D

_EW_

Oh noes, the man set up bombs forty years ago! Get over it, seriously, the man made major mistakes, and now he's turned himself in.

I don't care if he set the bombs 50 years ago, he was an adult when he set those bombs, this isn't a 5 year old finding a gun and accidentally shooting someone. This is an adult that formed a group to set bombs and commit other terrorist acts.

The man is a college professor, meaning he mostlikely holds a doctorate in the subject he teaches, and for the past forty years, insofar as I know, he has observed and followed the laws of our country. "We didn't do enough" is a very, very vague statement, and it could mean a number of things. Thusly, it comes down to what he says it means, not what you say it means. I am very, very sorry, but if anyone has credibility about what Ayers means when he says something, it's Ayers, because, guess what?

The fact he holds a doctorate and is a college professor makes it so I literally no faith in the integrity of the field of liberal arts (especially at the school where he teaches). He teaches students left wing radical ideology. He's a terrorist, all the crimes he committed were while he was an adult. I would not trust anyone with his record around children or teaching teachers, period.

I have a friend who's been arrested in the past repeatedly for male prostitution and drug use but who now holds down a job and contributes positively to society. It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and prostitute myself (and yes, feel free to laugh hysterically at the very idea of Jae being a streetwalker), nor does it mean we share the same views on sex.


Jae, your friend isn't a man that tried to murder people through bombings, nor did your friend try to kill children with a firebomb. Furthermore, Ayers is unrepentent, he isn't sorry for what he did aside from not bombing more places.

To be blunt people are missing the point, Jae you gave one unusual association, okay fine no biggie. However, people are missing the point I am trying to make. Ayers is only the tip of the iceberg, there are a number of other associations Obama has that all share Ayers' views, so it isn't just about Ayers, he's just part of a pattern of associations.

If even Obama did associate with a former terrorist some time ago, does it really matter? Does being acquainted with a suspected criminal make someone a criminal themselves? I can't figure out what you're exactly trying to imply about Obama. Does this make Obama a terrorist now, since he knows a former terrorist?

If even Obama did associate with a former terrorist some time ago, does it really matter?

If there is a pattern of him doing so over a number of years, and I think I can find instances with him an Ayers from 2006, maybe some stuff even as late as this year. That's hardly a long time ago.


Does being acquainted with a suspected criminal make someone a criminal themselves? I can't figure out what you're exactly trying to imply about Obama. Does this make Obama a terrorist now, since he knows a former terrorist?

Ayers is only one piece of the puzzle, just one dot among many. He's had a number of radical associations over the course of his life, and they all happen to interconnect. The point is how many dots do you need before it becomes a pattern.

Obama was still associating with the man after those interviews in 2001.

If there is a pattern of him doing so over a number of years, and I think I can find instances with him an Ayers from 2006, maybe some stuff even as late as this year. That's hardly a long time ago.

Ayers is only one piece of the puzzle, just one dot among many. He's had a number of radical associations over the course of his life, and they all happen to interconnect. The point is how many dots do you need before it becomes a pattern.

Obama was still associating with the man after those interviews in 2001.

Lets talk evidence - where is any evidence that Obama's "radical left" associations have effected his policies. Please indicate any of Obama's policies you think are dangerous far left ones?

You haven't answered my question: How does Obama's acquaintance with Ayers even affect Obama?

Lets talk evidence - where is any evidence that Obama's "radical left" associations have effected his policies. Please indicate any of Obama's policies you think are dangerous far left ones?

Yes there is, I'd only been posting it for the past few monthes. The Illinois-State senate situation concerning the right-to-life bill for infants that were born after a botched abortion. Only conservative sites brought it up, but they had an audio tape + transcripts from the Illinois state senate and transcripts of the bill as well. It was his association to Planned Parenthood he had a 100% rating for them.

There is other stuff I had posted in this forum with sources concerning his ties to ACORN, Ahneberg Project (with Ayers), and others.

You haven't answered my question: How does Obama's acquaintance with Ayers even affect Obama?

If it were just Ayers, it wouldn't, but I'm not just talking about Ayers, the domestic terrorist is just one of many radical associations that have a similar ideology with each other.

If it were just Ayers, it wouldn't, but I'm not just talking about Ayers, the domestic terrorist is just one of many radical associations that have a similar ideology with each other.So you're saying that Obama is as radical as Ayers? That Obama would be radical enough to bomb buildings?

Yes there is, I'd only been posting it for the past few monthes. The Illinois-State senate situation concerning the right-to-life bill for infants that were born after a botched abortion. Only conservative sites brought it up, but they had an audio tape + transcripts from the Illinois state senate and transcripts of the bill as well. It was his association to Planned Parenthood he had a 100% rating for them.

This answers my question how? I don't follow how any of that is radical left?

There is other stuff I had posted in this forum with sources concerning his ties to ACORN, Ahneberg Project (with Ayers), and others.

I don't see why ties to ACORN are a problem?

I don't see why ties to ACORN are a problem?
agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

_EW_

No doubt Fox News has him convinced that a clerk of some sort working for ACORN used salty language at a political rally 35 years ago, and said once that he wished he had participated in a more successful rally sworn more. I mean, an organisation that would employ such a man cannot be trusted, after all. :rolleyes:

To me, the only difference between Ayers and Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) is that Kaczynski was more competent at his craft and therefore more successful.

Lets talk evidence - where is any evidence that Obama's "radical left" associations have effected his policies. Please indicate any of Obama's policies you think are dangerous far left ones?


Jae, your friend isn't a man that tried to murder people through bombings, nor did your friend try to kill children with a firebomb. Furthermore, Ayers is unrepentent, he isn't sorry for what he did aside from not bombing more places.

To be blunt people are missing the point, Jae you gave one unusual association, okay fine no biggie. However, people are missing the point I am trying to make. Ayers is only the tip of the iceberg, there are a number of other associations Obama has that all share Ayers' views, so it isn't just about Ayers, he's just part of a pattern of associations.

I don't know if my friend tried to murder or not. I haven't seen his criminal history, and I doubt he's a murderer, though he was into some pretty kinky stuff that would be way out of line to discuss here. I wouldn't leave my kids with him, either, much as I like him.

I have to agree with jonathan7 on this--these associations don't prove how Obama thinks. Obama may associate with Ayers because of his education policies and not because of Ayers' view on war. The types of institutions where they had their associations are just as important, and it looks to me like their interactions were primarily on education, getting people registered to vote and active in the political process in general, and possibly juvenile criminal justice issues. I hang out with my ex-con friend because we have common interests in history re-enactment, Tudor costuming, and Renaissance music and dance, not because I want to be involved in sex crimes with him.

I discount the ACORN link--there have been plenty of instances where someone worked for a company involved in some type of fraud but had no knowledge of the fraud because it wasn't in their department. I worked for a nursing home practice for a short time that turned out to be amazingly fraudulent with billing and probably (minimal if any) service by a couple of the doctors, but I didn't know it because I never saw the books, I just did the medical side of things. My employment in a fraudulent company did not make me or my actions fraudulent, though it certainly made me jaded about the treatment people in nursing homes get by some less-than-honest providers. If something came out in the future regarding Obama and Acorn, some document that showed Obama was directly involved in voter registration/voter fraud, then that would be a problem. However, Acorn isn't the subject of discussion here, so I'll leave it at that.

the only difference between Ayers and Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) is that Kaczynski was more competent.
Point Man said something like this and I about fell over laughing, morbid as that is.

I don't know if my friend tried to murder or not. I haven't seen his criminal history, and I doubt he's a murderer, though he was into some pretty kinky stuff that would be way out of line to discuss here. I wouldn't leave my kids with him, either, much as I like him.

Jae, your friend doesn't brag about bombing places does he?


I have to agree with jonathan7 on this--these associations don't prove how Obama thinks. Obama may associate with Ayers because of his education policies and not because of Ayers' view on war. The types of institutions where they had their associations are just as important, and it looks to me like their interactions were primarily on education, getting people registered to vote and active in the political process in general, and possibly juvenile criminal justice issues. I hang out with my ex-con friend because we have common interests in history re-enactment, Tudor costuming, and Renaissance music and dance, not because I want to be involved in sex crimes with him.

Here's the thing though, you're being honest about your association with your friend and upfront about it. Obama has lied about the depth of his association repeatedly, even making claims that were irrefutably false. Something about him being just a guy in his neighborhood where their kids happen to go to the same school.

When Ayers' kids are adults.


I discount the ACORN link--there have been plenty of instances where someone worked for a company involved in some type of fraud but had no knowledge of the fraud because it wasn't in their department. I worked for a nursing home practice for a short time that turned out to be amazingly fraudulent with billing and probably (minimal if any) service by a couple of the doctors, but I didn't know it because I never saw the books, I just did the medical side of things. My employment in a fraudulent company did not make me or my actions fraudulent, though it certainly made me jaded about the treatment people in nursing homes get by some less-than-honest providers. If something came out in the future regarding Obama and Acorn, some document that showed Obama was directly involved in voter registration/voter fraud, then that would be a problem. However, Acorn isn't the subject of discussion here, so I'll leave it at that.

If your case matched his, which it does not I would agree with you. Fact is, Obama was in charge of the department that committed the fraud. Project Vote is what he was in charge of to be specific. The reason why Obama's associations keep being brought up is because he continually lies about their depth and tries to cover them up.

To me, the only difference between Ayers and Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) is that Kaczynski was more competent at his craft and therefore more successful.

Point Man said something like this and I about fell over laughing, morbid as that is.

That is not even remotely funny, I'd advise you all to read: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html)

The article was written by John M. Murtagh, whose family was targetted by the Weather Underground (which Ayers headed) when John was a 9 year old boy.

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.


This article continues another tidbit of interest:
Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

That's just a little bit of that article, the fact that Ayers is even considered a respected professor is one of the reasons why I'm very concerned about the education system. And Obama is friends with this domestic-terrorist lunatic. This wasn't simple property damage, they tried to deliberately kill people.

You still haven't really answered the question at hand: How does Obama's association with Ayers directly affect Obama?

Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

This is all speculation, as it was never proven to be the Weather Underground Organization. However, even if it was the WUO, you don't know that Bill Ayers was the one who planned (or if he was even involved in) this bombing. Not a real major point, just something to think about.

If your case matched his, which it does not I would agree with you. Fact is, Obama was in charge of the department that committed the fraud. Project Vote is what he was in charge of to be specific. The reason why Obama's associations keep being brought up is because he continually lies about their depth and tries to cover them up.


1. Project Vote is an independent organization, which is not a part of ACORN (although they do coordinate from time to time).
2. Please provide a source where Obama lies about/covers up Project Vote (because AFAIK, he's been open about heading the registration drive you're referring to).
3. Obama only represented ACORN in a '95 lawsuit, and is completely detached from the voter fraud issue.
4. Even if Project Vote (or ACORN) members did register a few false forms, there's no indication that Obama planned or even had knowledge of it.
5. This thread is titled "The Ayers Thread." Please try not to spam or derail this thread because of other issues that you find fault with (albeit falsely).

Thanks in advance.

_EW_

This is all speculation, as it was never proven to be the Weather Underground Organization. However, even if it was the WUO, you don't know that Bill Ayers was the one who planned (or if he was even involved in) this bombing. Not a real major point, just something to think about.

Except for the fact they basically admitted to doing it.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings. -- http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html)



1. Project Vote is an independent organization, which is not a part of ACORN (although they do coordinate from time to time).


Wrong they are closely related to each other.


2. Please provide a source where Obama lies about Project Vote (because AFAIK, he's been open about heading the registration drive you're referring to).


Oh I can go beyond that cause this is where the articles were disappearing during the 2008 Elections.

Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible. Unfortunately, those behind the attempted cover-up failed to realize that in today's day and age, nothing disappears forever. There also exists another layer of the web, the hidden web, which is full of information included in proprietary scholarly databases where these very same "missing" articles can be easily uncovered.
-- http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7203)

Oh and I also actually saw this happen online, because some of the sources that disappeared were ones I used for posts I made tieing Obama to ACORN.


3. Obama only represented ACORN in a '95 lawsuit, and is completely detached from the voter fraud issue.

4. Even if Project Vote (or ACORN) members did register a few false forms, there's no indication that Obama planned or even had knowledge of it.


I'm not saying Obama planned the fraud stuff in 2008, but he probably was involved in prior elections.


5. This thread is titled "The Ayers Thread." Please try not to spam or derail this thread because of other issues that you find fault with (albeit falsely).


I'm not derailing the topic, I'm pointing out the fact that Ayers is just one piece in the puzzle.

You still haven't really answered the question at hand: How does Obama's association with Ayers directly affect Obama?

I've answered the question several times, I'm going to quote myself.
If it were just Ayers, it wouldn't, but I'm not just talking about Ayers, the domestic terrorist is just one of many radical associations that have a similar ideology with each other.

That fact is that Ayers is just one of many pieces, this is why I don't agree with this being seperated from the Obama thread because this is just one of many associations, I haven't even gotten through all the associations that start with the letter 'A' yet. There's plenty more where Ayers came from.

I've answered the question several times, I'm going to quote myself.


That fact is that Ayers is just one of many pieces, this is why I don't agree with this being seperated from the Obama thread because this is just one of many associations, I haven't even gotten through all the associations that start with the letter 'A' yet. There's plenty more where Ayers came from.

But you've failed to show how this effects Obama's thinking, or how it effects Obama's policy making. At most you've shown he's poor at picking social company; though I'd argue to a much lesser extent than Bush. Further more we could talk how Bush won via strange ballots and very narrowly; Obama didn't win narrowly; so it's a lot more pertinent with regards Bush than it is Obama.

But you've failed to show how this effects Obama's thinking, or how it effects Obama's policy making. At most you've shown he's poor at picking social company; though I'd argue to a much lesser extent than Bush. Further more we could talk how Bush won via strange ballots and very narrowly; Obama didn't win narrowly; so it's a lot more pertinent with regards Bush than it is Obama.

Actually in 2000, the Supreme Court ended the recount for a pretty legitimate reason. Also your argument holds absolutely no water, because even Joseph Lieberman slammed the Democrats for some of their tactics (and he was Gore's running mate).

For many Democrats immersed in Florida's disputed presidential election, there was no worse moment than the one on Sunday, Nov. 19, when Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on national television and said that election officials should give the ''benefit of the doubt'' to military voters.

Until then, the Democrats had conducted a full-scale effort to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures. But on that morning, with Republicans attacking the Gore-Lieberman campaign for eliminating the votes of hundreds of men and women in the armed forces, Mr. Lieberman effectively disavowed the strategy. -- New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407EEDC133BF936A25754C0A9679C8B) 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

Then there is http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)

To sum it up the Democrats were trying to violate the "Equal Protection Clause".

To Quote the information found:

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy.

That seven includes at least 1 probably 2 liberal justices and the swing vote. It wasn't a 1 vote decision, the Democrats got caught trying to cheat, even their own VP candidate bashed them for it.


Now to answer the question about Obama's thinking, by itself it doesn't but considering the number of associations and even Obama has said something about an acorn not falling far from a tree. You have a huge number of radical left friends, chances are you're also radical left, especially when you're funnelling money to their projects.

Now to answer the question about Obama's thinking, by itself it doesn't but considering the number of associations and even Obama has said something about an acorn not falling far from a tree. You have a huge number of radical left friends, chances are you're also radical left, especially when you're funnelling money to their projects.Fine. He has "radical left" ideologies. Please inform me as to why I should care. Please inform me why I should discount everything Ayers has done based on some of his actions -- why do his crimes cancel out his good deeds? Or are you counting them as crimes as well because you disagree with his politics?

Thanks.

Fine. He has "radical left" ideologies. Please inform me as to why I should care. Please inform me why I should discount everything Ayers has done based on some of his actions -- why do his crimes cancel out his good deeds? Or are you counting them as crimes as well because you disagree with his politics?

I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed. That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatic's pet projects of radicalizing children.

*Warning, some may consider this controversial*

On Bush's 2000 election? You really don't want to push this; How is America a democracy, when the popular vote, i.e. the Person with the most votes wasn't president;

George W. Bush Republican Texas 50,456,002 47.87%
Al Gore Democratic Tennessee 50,999,897 48.38%

So you have States being worth more than others, which puts pay to the idea of everyone being born equal, no? Put's pay to the notion of one man, one vote. So basically you had a guy in charge, that the majority of people didn't vote for. Do you really want to go here? To bring that on topic, Obama was swept in, some 10 million ahead of McCain, meaning to the majority of Americans, these supposed left-wing radicals don't concern them.

Now to answer the question about Obama's thinking, by itself it doesn't but considering the number of associations and even Obama has said something about an acorn not falling far from a tree.

See, here's my problem Garfield; I'm not Obama's biggest fan, as he reminds me of Blair in '97. However he's already proven he's a better President than Bush as he's said he's going to get rid of Guantánamo Bay (the biggest single own goal, in politics, ever! We represent freedom, but will lock people up and torture them). It seems to me your paranoid about Obama, yet to be honest, all this Ayers stuff is irrelevant, as unless you show facts about how Obama's supposed radical-left associations are effect policy it's all irrelevant, as you've just got conjecture. And I would once again put forward that if he's guilty of anything let due process do it's course.

I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed. That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.

Good to see freedom of speech is still alive. Who should decide what is, or is not allowed in school?

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatic's pet projects of radicalizing children.Before you go into more ravings on how liberals are raping America, I'd like for you to very closely at this post and actually answer the question, rather than change the topic:
But you've failed to show how this effects Obama's thinking, or how it effects Obama's policy making. At most you've shown he's poor at picking social company; though I'd argue to a much lesser extent than Bush. Further more we could talk how Bush won via strange ballots and very narrowly; Obama didn't win narrowly; so it's a lot more pertinent with regards Bush than it is Obama.

I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed. That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatic's pet projects of radicalizing children.

I want:

1. Proof that he ever actually bragged about his violent actions specifically, not his political stance, and said "I wish I blew up more ****".
2. Proof that he has ever taught his students left-wing radicalism, and is called such by a few sources, both conservative AND liberal, and
3. Sources other than Newsbusters, Fox News, and similar news sources with totally conservative bias.

Until I get these, this attack on Ayers is wrong in my eyes, and always will be. End of story.

Furthermore, if you are seeking to somehow prove that his so called "relationship" with Obama is indicative of Obama's philosophies, I want:

1. Proof of affiliations with these "20 other disreputable people and organisations"
2. Proof that this somehow means he believes what they believe, with viable sources in psychology that effectually argue against free will
3. All of these things without touching a Newsbusters blog, Fox news, or similar news sources with totally conservative bias.

Good luck.

I hardly consider indoctrinating children into the far-left ideology to be a good deed.Or are you counting them as crimes as well because you disagree with his politics?My divining powers grow with each passing day.

That man shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of a school, let alone a Professor. Especially since he isn't even sorry for the bombings.Flawed logic. Criminals can be smart as well.

The man is a terrorist and killed people, he tried to kill more people. He's bragged about it, and wishes he could have bombed more targets, that's not a man I want near or anyone he's taught near my kids. And Obama financed this lunatics pet projects of radicalizing children.Yes, we get that he's done bad things, but why should we a) believe your whole indoctrination theory; and b) agree with your demonization of left wing politics?

1. Proof that he ever actually bragged about his violent actions specifically, not his political stance, and said "I wish I blew up more ****".

Oh you mean This:
You mean to tell me he never read the print media from Chicago where he lives? Chicago Magazine/August-2001 (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/)

And here is an article from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B) 63)


2. Proof that he has ever taught his students left-wing radicalism, and is called such by a few sources, both conservative AND liberal, and
3. Sources other than Newsbusters, Fox News, and similar news sources with totally conservative bias.


I'm going to be completely blunt: Try to prove me wrong on my statements concerning what he teaches, because I'm kinda sick of posting up proof for you to not bother reading especially since I can't stand the New York Times at all. And try to find a source that isn't a left wing propaganda pulpit to back up your sources. I can find stuff to prove he taught left-wing radicalism, but I'm quite frankly getting a little annoyed with people demanding I provide evidence that I already provided at least a dozen times.

Flawed logic. Criminals can be smart as well.

I really don't care how smart he is aside from the fact it makes him even more dangerous to children.


Yes, we get that he's done bad things, but why should we a) believe your whole indoctrination theory; and b) agree with your demonization of left wing politics?

Teachers are in a position of authority over their students and are extremely vulnerable, look at the inappropriate (putting it mildly) teacher/student relationships as an example.

I'm not saying Obama planned the fraud stuff in 2008, but he probably was involved in prior elections.

Probably? You'll have to do better than speculation to convince us of that.

Probably? You'll have to do better than speculation to convince us of that.

I'm still waiting on you to prove me wrong about what I've said about Ayers, and not using a left wing propaganda source in the process, because I've used both liberal and conservative sources to back up my statements.

Burden of proof is on you, Garfield, the accussing party. You have still not proven, to anyone, that Obama's ties to Ayers - or anyone else you're trying to unjustly smear, for that matter - has any sort of impact on his own views. I am personally surrounded by people I would classify as right wing nutbars of varying relationships ranging from unfortunate acquaintanceship to one of my closest friends. Their political views and beliefs have absolutely no effect on my own. Prove that Obama is being negatively influenced by these so-called radicals, or just please stop.

Burden of proof is on you, Garfield, the accussing party. You have still not proven, to anyone, that Obama's ties to Ayers - or anyone else you're trying to unjustly smear, for that matter - has any sort of impact on his own views.

And I have provided proof several times over, but people have simply chosen to ignore the articles I've posted, and it doesn't matter if they included videos, transcripts from the Illinois State Senate, Financial Ties, etc. Nobody bothers to read them, even when I use left-wing sources to back up what I say.


I am personally surrounded by people I would classify as right wing nutbars of varying relationships ranging from unfortunate acquaintanceship to one of my closest friends.

Are you saying I'm a nutcase too, I really don't think they are as out there as you're saying.

Their political views and beliefs have absolutely no effect on my own. Prove that Obama is being negatively influenced by these so-called radicals, or just please stop.

Have your friends committed terrorist acts and tried to kill people? Furthermore have you provided money to further their ideological agenda?

And I have provided proof several times over, but people have simply chosen to ignore the articles I've posted, and it doesn't matter if they included videos, transcripts from the Illinois State Senate, Financial Ties, etc. Nobody bothers to read them, even when I use left-wing sources to back up what I say.

For everyone to think about; Both sides are both complaining of this. This thread is going no-where fast. I don't think either side is going to back down at all. -- j7

For everyone to think about; Both sides are both complaining of this. This thread is going no-where fast. I don't think either side is going to back down at all. -- j7

jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.

The fact he is a College Professor from Chicago doesn't inspire confidence, because Chicago has one of the worst school systems in the country.

jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.Are trying to imply that you're only sure that and article is true if it's hosted on a conservative news site?
The fact he is a College Professor from Chicago doesn't inspire confidence, because Chicago has one of the worst school systems in the country.I suppose you're right, the University of Chicago is one of the world's most prestigious universities. Home to 82 Nobel laureates, it's obviously a complete party school. :rolleyes:

jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.

No, conservatives would never be willing to admit that a man they're trying to pin Obama on isn't as bad as they're painting him. That'd totally ruin their whole campaign against the evil terrorist Obama, who is going to blow up our nation. :rolleyes:

And, I'm fairly sure that, as pre-established by your earlier posts, that your definition of what is "left-wing" is very much open for debate. If not completely erroneous. You keep saying that liberals are painting conservatives as nutbars, but you try to make us seem like crazed, homicidal radicalists (ineffectually, I might add), merely to serve your purpose, which, btw, you have yet to share with us.

I would like to know exactly what the point of calling Ayers a terrorist really is. What attempting to prove these 20 or so connections you claim Obama has serves. Are you, or are you not, attempting to prove the point that Obama is somehow affected by these "associations" (still totally not proven), and that because of this, he is going to cause intentional harm to our country?

I'd like to know, because if you are, then I'm not wasting my time with this anymore.

jonathan7 I must respectfully disagree, I have yet to see one conservative news source saying that Ayers is being repentent. I can find plenty of left wing news sources that show Ayers bragging. Which is quite frankly why I'm asking for one.

You can disagree but the thread has generally gone like this;

Person 1: Ayers is a terrorist and is effecting Obama.

Person 2: No he isn't/

Person 3: No he isn't

Person 1: Yes he is.

Person 2. No he isn't

Person 4. No he isn't

Person 5 "No he isn't" - QFT

Person 1: Yes he is

Person 2: No He isn't

Etc Etc.

Jae falls over laughing.... :xp:

Again see the September 11, 2001 news article by the New York Times of an interview of Bill Ayers. That I had posted repeatedly in another thread. Now consider the public backlash from the events of 9/11.

Bill Ayers has nothing to do with Bush. Stop using him to make your rhetoric seem more valid, because no two people have ever had less to do with one another than these two. Not because Bush is the pinnacle of perfection and Ayers is some villianous scum, no, just because Ayers is liberal, and Bush is conservative. And also too busy being in bed with the oil industry to handle another relationship.

Also, anything that happened during 9/11 isn't at all relevant to the public opinion of Bush. Most Americans were scared, and Bush fed off that fear and amplified it to accomplish his alterior goal, which was to start that vendetta on his father's old nemesis. Therefore, he used empty threats of terrorism and nuclear war to garner public support.

And we shouldn't consider him the most powerful terrorist alive... why?

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0306-21.htm)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/18/417347.aspx)

Inversely, I got a kick out of this, as it completely contradicts every other source I've seen.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html)

Forever Night, I was making the point that Bush did not suspend it.

Bill Ayers has nothing to do with Bush. Stop using him to make your rhetoric seem more valid, because no two people have ever had less to do with one another than these two. Not because Bush is the pinnacle of perfection and Ayers is some villianous scum, no, just because Ayers is liberal, and Bush is conservative. And also too busy being in bed with the oil industry to handle another relationship.

I'm talking about the New York Times article and what the public reaction to it was.

I'm talking about the New York Times article and what the public reaction to it was.

Then what was the point of dropping Ayers in there?

Okay and Now I shall tie this together financially

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=190343)

A video of a report by CNN.

Edit:
Then what was the point of dropping Ayers in there?

Because he was the guy that the New York Times Interviewed...


And I haven't gotten to pointing out MSNBC's pathological hatred of the President yet, but I'll get to it soon enough.

Because he was the guy that the New York Times Interviewed...


And I haven't gotten to pointing out MSNBC's pathological hatred of the President yet, but I'll get to it soon enough.

Sure, because that's all you meant by throwing his name around.

And I think you're confusing Bush with Obama, and MSNBC for Fox News.

Or, you could be confusing Bush with facts and logic. Not sure yet.

And I have provided proof several times over, but people have simply chosen to ignore the articles I've posted, and it doesn't matter if they included videos, transcripts from the Illinois State Senate, Financial Ties, etc. Nobody bothers to read them, even when I use left-wing sources to back up what I say.
You have provided biased sources that have, in my opinion, absolutely 100% no credibility. At all.


Are you saying I'm a nutcase too, I really don't think they are as out there as you're saying.
:xp:
And you have no right to comment on my associates' political ideologies, however, by saying that they "aren't that out there". You don't know them, quite frankly. Kinda like how you don't know Ayers, but we won't touch on that one.


Have your friends committed terrorist acts and tried to kill people? Furthermore have you provided money to further their ideological agenda?
Irrelevant. One of my best friends is a die-hard, Bible-thumping Christian, and both he and my favourite uncle are strong supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada. By your logic, that means I have to be just as right-wing as they are. The extent of their ideology doesn't change the fact that their own beliefs have no effect on me whatsoever. That's the point you're cimpletely ignoring missing here.

FoxNews' reporting in the regular news segments is considered factual. The opinion reporting and commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity are indeed biased to the conservative, but the reporting of the news itself is accurate. Otherwise, using the logic that we should throw everything by Fox out, we should throw out everything said by CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes because of their significant liberal bias in their opinion programs and editorials.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's something reported in the regular news segments by either CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I'm fine with those facts and reports.

The opinion reporting by Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc, is just that--opinion. The NYTimes has been caught enough times with inaccuracies that they didn't retract, and at least 1 reporter completely making up stories, that I cannot trust them as a reliable news outlet anymore.

Sure, because that's all you meant by throwing his name around.

And I think you're confusing Bush with Obama, and MSNBC for Fox News.

Or, you could be confusing Bush with facts and logic. Not sure yet.

I've confused nothing I can find evidence to prove MSNBC has absolutely no credibility just by who they used to cover the conventions as "objective journalists" and some other stuff.

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/blogger_convention_organizer_said_rnc_protesters_h) ad/

While I will acknowledge this source is a blogger, I remember the report on Fox News when I was watching the Republican Convention that Code Pink protesters had gotten in with press passes. The blogger is stating it was MSNBC press passes. I'll try to find a second source.