The Bomber as School Reformer

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

That his decisions are made by handlers was your defense for Obama.

When did I defend Obama?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

But I've never seen any other pres candidate do these things. So what's up? Somehow his handlers must feel that these tactics are in line with their candidate's message.

I really can't explain it fully but the Obama campaign bugs the heck out of me. Apart from any discussion of his policies, it just feels wrong. People are too infatuated with him and he will likely lead without the appropriate checks and balances. Just like Bush did for 6 years.

Crap look at his current logo, like he's the rising sun or some such. He's the saviour of the world, he showed us in Berlin.

His supporters act just like he's the messiah as well, can't criticize the messiah or you are blaspheming. I'm not sure I've heard a single position by chum thats' critical of the messiah, if there is one, let me hear it. You sure don't hear it from the media, it's almost funny, except that it's such a serious subject.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Underdog

When did I defend Obama?

sorry. rabbitproofs defense of Obama. The analogy I drew, was based on what you point out. That Bush is concerned with his policies above of all else (whether they be his or his handlers) and Obama is concerned with his image of all else (whether they be his or his handlers) was my analogy.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You don't want to have a rational discussion about the issues. You want to believe, and argue, that Obama is some sort of terrorist because he knows Bill Ayers. Your head is buried so deep in the far-right sand that you wouldn't know objective if it hit you in the face.

I'm beginning to think you don't read before posting.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, they offer up the facts...

Quote:
Summary
In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.

Let's take this statement as an example. Look at the exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Obama back in April:

Stephanopoulos: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

Obama: "George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

Technically, everything Obama said MAY be true, but his response is clearly misleading based upon what he left out. In fact, Hillary had to bring up his service on the Woods Board with Ayers. He never mentioned the Annenberg Challenge at all.

Next thing you know you'll tell me that you find his response about not knowing how Jeremiah Wright felt about the U.S. Government (and, *gasp*, white people) plausible and believable.

The man lacks credibility.

In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.

it rests on what "pals around" entails. to be a "pal" one must have a recurring social relationship, and there has been NO evidence of ANY of these activities between obama and ayers.

I think "paling around" is a stretch based upon what we know so far, but no more of a stretch than FactCheck asserting that "so far as is known, their relationship was never very close." If that's not begging the question, I don't know what is. That's not a "fact check". That's a naked opinion without any factual substantiation.

And McCain's description of them as associates is clearly accurate.

the facts above support the conclusion that the annenberg challenge was not "radical"

From Kurtz: "CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)"

Maybe you think ACORN is a pretty mainstream organization?

[Silk Smoov]

This below tells the whole story

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

This below tells the whole story

typical devoid of content.

[Silk Smoov]

You want devoid, here you go:

Does McCain have radical ties?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets see if this is correct (Heard this from a little grapevine):

1. Is McCain friends with convicted Watergate burglar Goron Liddy? Dont forget he advocated shooting federal agents, and lately he fired handguns at cardboard cutouts of Hillary Clinton

2. McCain choose Palin, whose husband was a member of secessionist political party with ties to Iran, and Palin delivered an address at the convention.

3. Is McCain friends with Chuck Colson? Remember him, the convicted Nixon hatcet-man and he is made plans to bomb the Smithsonian

4. Is McCain a member of the US Council for World Freedom whose membership includes antisemites and Nazi sympathizers

Looks to me that McCain really does have radical ties. Hmm, seems kinda odd to claim Obama has radical ties dont you think

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

You want devoid, here you go:

Does McCain have radical ties?

2. McCain choose Palin, whose husband was a member of secessionist political party with ties to Iran, and Palin delivered an address at the convention.

Please tell me what you see wrong with their platform? Until then you can go back to cursing women.

http://www.akip.org/platform.html

Platform and Goal of the Alaskan Independence Party

Preamble

We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.

Platform
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.
2. To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.
3. To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.
4. To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.
5. To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
6. To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
7. To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.
8. To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.
9. To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.
10. To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.
11. To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.
12. To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.
13. To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
14. To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.
15. To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.
16. To support the privatization of government services.
17. To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.
18. To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.
19. To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.
20. To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Crap look at his current logo, like he's the rising sun or some such. He's the saviour of the world, he showed us in Berlin.

And let's not forget the (real) Gold, Silver, and Platinum Obama coins that his campaign recently had minted in England for use as gifts to governors, senators, foreign leaders and other poobahs, or the Giant Obama-Head Mural flanked Barrakopolis in Denver, Dude ...


Graven Imagery?

[mary]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The great mural Lincoln would say: "Vote Republican. The survival of our nation depends on it."

Not really. Granted I'm not an expert on history, but Lincoln's policies were far from being "Republican" by today's standards....and I'm not talkin' about slavery.

[Epitome22]

If Lincoln were alive today, the United States Republican Party would accuse him of being a socialist. He would not win his party's nomination.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

If Lincoln were alive today, the United States Republican Party would accuse him of being a socialist. He would not win his party's nomination.

you mean like McCain and Bush?
If Lincoln were alive today, the Dems would call him a racist warmonger.

[Epitome22]

Sure they would if the other Dems alive today were named Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. I have a tough time believing a man like Lincoln would see much worth in a pointless war in Iraq. I admire Lincoln for his radical interventionist policies and remarkable restraint prosecuting a war against a gaggle of slavery fetishizing traitors. He had moral clairity, unlike the bunch that how bear his party's namesake.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

Sure they would if the other Dems alive today were named Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. I have a tough time believing a man like Lincoln would see much worth in a pointless war in Iraq. I admire Lincoln for his radical interventionist policies and remarkable restraint prosecuting a war against a gaggle of slavery fetishizing traitors. He had moral clairity, unlike the bunch that how bear his party's namesake.

well, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't be against the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent babies.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

And let's not forget the (real) Gold, Silver, and Platinum Obama coins that his campaign recently had minted in England for use as gifts to governors, senators, foreign leaders and other poobahs, or the Giant Obama-Head Mural flanked Barrakopolis in Denver, Dude ...


Graven Imagery?

How can anyone deny this guy is an egomaniac narcissist (maybe that's redundant). Combine that with the infatuation by the masses and it spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

well, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't be against the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent babies.

I think he would too. Good thing slaughtering innocent babies is already illegal in this country.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

I think he would too. Good thing slaughtering innocent babies is already illegal in this country.

uh, yeah. I think he'd be against defining "personhood" in order to justify killing.
Obama, on the other hand...

[kg_veteran]

A Question of Character
Peter Wehner - 10.14.2008 - 4:51 PM - link

At a time when many people are saying Barack Obama’s past associations with radical figures doesn’t matter — and even that it shouldn’t matter - it’s worth considering the opposite argument.

From the ancient Greeks to the founding fathers, many of our best political minds believed character in our leaders matters. It doesn’t matter more than anything else, and character is itself a complicated thing. People can have strong character in some respects and weak character in others. People can demonstrate battlefield valor, for example, yet show cruelty to those over whom they have power. They can speak unpleasant truths when there is a high cost to doing so and betray their spouses. Individuals can demonstrate admirable loyalty to their friends and still lie to the public, or work for peace and yet violate the laws of our land.

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.

Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.

Will it be something that will manifest itself if Obama is elected President? It’s impossible to know for sure, and we can hope it wouldn’t be the case. But it might.

The concern is not that Obama will invite domestic terrorists to the White House for signing ceremonies or private lunches; rather, it is that we know enough about Obama to say that his enormous personal ambition has clouded his judgment over the years. He looks to be a man who will do disquieting things in order to climb the ladder of political success; when he was in Hyde Park, the rungs on that ladder included Mr. Ayers and the Reverend Wright. This kind of trait — soaring ambition trumping sound judgment — can manifest itself in very problematic ways, especially when you occupy the most powerful office in the world.

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

It’s true enough that the McCain campaign has never explained in a sustained, adequate way why these radical associations matter; that McCain, for reasons that are hard to fathom, has declared the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is off limits; and that the MSM is so deeply wed to Obama’s victory that they have done all they can to turn the issue of Obama’s radical associations into a problem for John McCain rather than Barack Obama. And so it’s quite possible that raising Obama’s radical associations in the last 20 days won’t be politically effective and may even be politically counterproductive, given the economic crisis we’re facing and the ham-handed way it’s been handled so far. Many Americans certainly seems to be of the mind that Obama’s associations with Ayers and Wright and all the rest don’t matter.

I get all that. But some of us believe there is a responsibility to make this case in a calm, responsible, factual way. We believe it’s important to explain why Obama’s radical associations bear on the question of his character, and why Obama’s character bears on the question of electing our next President. This issue shouldn’t, by itself, be dispositive. Nor should it be the only, or even the most important, issue in the campaign. Nor is it fair to say that Obama’s character can be understood only through the prism of his associations. But to evoke eye-rolling, dismissive reactions in response to simply raising the issue is an effort to sideline a legitimate topic.

The time-honored truth is that character matters in leaders. Sometimes people forget that lesson - and when they do, it’s appropriate to remind them. And whether the country understands it or not, and whether voters think it’s a big deal or not, integrity and associations matter.

If Barack Obama is elected President, sooner or later people will realize this applies to him as well. It’s only right to ask the relevant questions in advance of this election — and despite the ridicule being dished out by the acolytes and cheerleaders of Senator Obama, it’s not too much to ask Obama to explain his relationship over the years with people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption.

[Mavdog]

My Friend Bill Ayers
By THOMAS FRANKArticle

"Waving the bloody shirt" was the phrase once used to describe the standard demagogic tactic of the late 19th century, when memories of the Civil War were still vivid and loyalists of both parties could be moved to "vote as they shot." As the years passed and the memories faded, the shirt got gorier, the waving more frantic.

In 1896 the Democrats chose William Jennings Bryan as their leader, a man who was born in 1860 and had thus missed the Civil War, but who seemed to threaten the consensus politics of the time. In response, Republican campaign masterminds organized a speaking tour of the Midwest by a handful of surviving Union generals. The veterans advanced through the battleground states in a special train adorned with patriotic bunting, pictures of their candidate, William McKinley, and a sign declaring, "We are Opposed to Anarchy and Repudiation."

The culture wars are the familiar demagogic tactic of our own time, building monstrous offenses out of the tiniest slights. The fading rancor that each grievance is meant to revive, of course, dates to the 1960s and the antiwar protests, urban riots and annoying youth culture that originally triggered our great turn to the right.

This year the Democrats chose Barack Obama as their leader, a man who was born in 1961 and who largely missed our cultural civil war. In response, Republican campaign masterminds have sought to plunge him back into it in the most desperate and grotesque manner yet.

For days on end, the Republican presidential campaign has put nearly all of its remaining political capital on emphasizing Mr. Obama's time on various foundation boards with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen, which planted bombs and issued preposterous statements in the Vietnam era. Some on the right seem to believe Mr. Ayers is Mr. Obama's puppet-master, while others are content merely to insist that the association proves Mr. Obama to be soft on terrorism. Maybe he's soft on anarchy and repudiation, too.

I can personally attest to the idiocy of it all because I am a friend of Mr. Ayers. In fact, I met him in the same way Mr. Obama says he did: 10 years ago, Mr. Ayers was a guy in my neighborhood in Chicago who knew something about fundraising. I knew nothing about it, I needed to learn, and a friend referred me to Bill.

Bill's got lots of friends, and that's because he is today a dedicated servant of those less fortunate than himself; because he is unfailingly generous to people who ask for his help; and because he is kind and affable and even humble. Moral qualities which, by the way, were celebrated boisterously on day one of the GOP convention in September.

Mr. Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where his work is esteemed by colleagues of different political viewpoints. Herbert Walberg, an advocate of school vouchers who is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, told me he remembers Mr. Ayers as "a responsible colleague, in the professional sense of the word." Bill Schubert, who served as the chairman of UIC's Department of Curriculum and Instruction for many years, thinks so highly of Mr. Ayers that, in response to the current allegations, he compiled a lengthy résumé of the man's books, journal articles, guest lectures and keynote speeches. Mr. Ayers has been involved with countless foundation efforts and has received various awards. He volunteers for everything. He may once have been wanted by the FBI, but in the intervening years the man has become such a good citizen he ought to be an honorary Eagle Scout.

I do not defend the things Mr. Ayers did in his Weatherman days. Nor will I quibble with those who find Mr. Ayers wanting in contrition. His 2001 memoir is shot through with regret, but it lacks the abject style our culture prefers.

Instead I want to note that, in its haste to convict a man merely for associating with Mr. Ayers, the GOP is effectively proposing to make the upcoming election into the largest mass trial in history, with all those professors and all those do-gooders on the hook for someone else's deeds four decades ago. Also in the dock: the demonic city (Chicago) that once named Mr. Ayers its "Citizen of the Year." Fire up Hurricane Katrina and point it toward Lake Michigan!

The McCain campaign has made much of its leader's honor and bravery, but now it has chosen to mount its greatest attack against a man who poses no conceivable threat to the country, who has nothing to do with this year's issues, and who cannot or will not defend himself. Apparently this makes him an irresistible target.

There are a lot of things to call this tactic, but "country first" isn't one of them. The nation wants its hope and confidence restored, and Republican leaders have chosen instead to wave the bloody shirt. This is their vilest hour.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteranFor those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: [B

if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.[/B]

what a load of bs.

comparing wright to a "white supremacist" is analygous to equating the perpertrator to the victim. do we rail at the victim of abuse for their pleas for justice? do we ask the victim of robbery to establish their possessions were really needed? do we ask victims of rape to pay for the costs for their medical treatment?

wait, scratch that last one, for there are some candidates who do that very thing....

wright may say many things we object to, but to place his comments on par with supremacists is flat out wrong.