In a quite arbitrary fashion, I choose to resolve this conflict by accepting the results of official process. What a sheep I am! The fact that the government after investigation refused to prosecute carries a lot of weight with me.

Nobody thinks Obama countenances terrorism, they just want to engage him in an endless discussion about Ayers, a subject which is unresolvable outside juridical process.

Report comment to moderator

You mean by having her cover it up, or not inject it with heroin, or not seducing middle school boys with it? In what way are such “obstructions to her autonomy over her body” unethical?

Abortion involves another body, undeniably human, living by any biological definition, and genetically distinct from its mother. Abortion is indisputably the deliberate taking of a human life. Your preference for slogans over reality is intellectual sloth at its worth.

Nobody here defends bombing abortion clinics. You defend bombing US government buildings and then try to deflect any criticism by justifying the deliberate killing of human beings as a right that cannot be ethically challenged.

Obama has publicly presented himself as a new kind of politician capable of uniting America. His record shows him to be the most hard left member of the Senate and his association with Bill Ayers, who still defends his actions and speeches in the 60s and 70s, demonstrates Obama’s commitment to the hard left wing of his party.

Yes, Scroop, Ayers has made counter claims. Unfortunately those counterclaims have been countered by more of his own published words and those of his wife. He might be ashamed of the Weathermen’s “arrogance rigidity and narcissism”, but not evidently of their violenct tactics.

Report comment to moderator

‘Ayers denies he ever participated in terrorism, approved of terrorism, or defended terrorism. The United States declined to prosecute him.’

This was the same argument that lefties used when trying to deflect the Komrade Koward Kerry Traitor problems he had. Kerry supposedly never participated in traitorous activities nor was he ever prosecuted by the US government for them. This kind of defense doesn’t work when folks find out the real truth as they will with Bill Ayers – just like they did with Kerry.

We know the left loves to defend home grown American terrorists and traitors for some reason unknown to us, so your defence of Ayers has set off an alarm and will make our looking at his past, very closely, a requirement and likely more fruitful.

We have seen this before and suspects where it will lead. Saying Ayers wasn’t an anti American terrorist and, even if he was one by mistake, he certainly has changed for the better and has become typical harmless, mainstream, left wing now, would be like McCain saying he fought in Nam Nam by horrible mistake but is different now and would never do such a thing again. It sure gives typically harmless, mainstream, left wing new meaning at the very least.

I’m not buying your propaganda spin control. You can’t fool everyone all the time, as so many lefties think. We know your leaders too well

The truth always comes out in the end and I can almost, but not quite, guarantee you that Obama won’t like what truth says about Ayers – no more than Kerry like what truth said about him.

Obamas’s problem is that he is a near Marxist, ultra, left wing socialist and the most liberal senator in the US Senate. He makes Hillary look like Ronald Reagan. He will not escape that and can’t blame it on a minor misunderstanding in someone else’s past that he isn’t really related to in any way.

Report comment to moderator

“I oppose Obama because he’s a socialist,”

Please move to the head of the class.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Yes, there is some difference between targeting people and attempting to limit damage to property. But both are terrorism. Ayers hasn’t disavowed those tactics (or at least not consistently disavowed them). Attacks on one’s property still inspire terror (ask someone whose home has been broken into), and Ayers is disngenuous at best to assert otherwise. I stand by what I said.

My dad was one of his Little League coaches, by the way. My sisters went through school with him.

Report comment to moderator

Then critics of Obama are lying. The story is no longer about Ayers and Obama but about the sincerity of Republican arguments.

Ayers denies he ever participated in terrorism, approved of terrorism, or defended terrorism. The United States declined to prosecute him. Ayers contributes to the good of society. So what’s Obama to do, re-visit and re-open an old case? Obama is running for president, not Great Judge of all men at the end of time.

Report comment to moderator

Your candidate? Well, he cancels debates because he was put on the spot in the last one. And here you are saying people can’t ask a question. And I’ll bet we’re not allowed to say that he’s gotten an endorsement from Hamas either!

Hillary’s right about one thing: if you can’t stand the heat in the kitchen, …. Obama’s gonna need to show some guts here, guys. So far, not seeing it.

Don’t tell me this is another liberal double standard!

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

An abortion clinic bomber is a tool of patriarchal oppression. Ayers is not. You think I can’t analyze intent? While my admiration for Ayers does not include his violent actions (and he is certainly glad for that) but his political mission and sincerity, obstructing a woman’s autonomy over her body is unethical regardless of how you do it, violent or not.

And you are not making a legit comparison. While I can’t speak to ALL abortion clinic bombers, quick research shows they “popularly” have attacked people, whereas the WU attacked empty buildings and monuments.

Quick MSNBC news reference shows 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers (people) between 1977 and 1994. And 4 deaths in 1994. I don;t know how many before that, but the point is we tend to be talking about killers.

I know that you will not make the effort to inform yourself because you are an intellectual sloth. So you won’t watch a completely free-to-you documentary where you can be exposed to Ayers’s own voice recounting his actions (It is actually Ayers in person who describes the revelations the movement went through after the accidental deaths of 3 other members who fortunately killed themselves and not the people they intended) and describes the fail safes and the efforts they went through to safeguard human life during their campaigns.

And in fact, in multiple bombings of government buildings and monuments, ZERO people died, and ZERO people where injured.

Is someone really a terrorist when they call you and tell you a the bomb is going to go off in advance in an empty building? Hardly inspires terror, and that wasn’t their goal.

Of course, if you DID take the time to educate yourself, you’d also hear Ayers regret the bombings. But you won’t, cause your lazy and you lack the moral authority to speak because you refuse to inform yourself about the subject.

Report comment to moderator