Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Heels on, gloves off
“The heels are on, the gloves are off,” Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin declared over the weekend as she launched pointed attacks against Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Palin, whose debate performance last week reinvigorated Republicans, seemed to embrace her new role as John McCain’s walking point as she levied criticism of Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the domestic terror group, Weather Underground:
“Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country,” Palin told a rally of about 10,000 gathered at a tennis stadium in Carson, a suburb of Los Angeles.
That echoed comments she made earlier in the day to donors at a private airport in Englewood, Colo.: “Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
But according to the Christian Science Monitor, this new campaign strategy is leaving some conservatives uneasy, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, who doesn’t believe a negative campaign can be successful:
“They don’t understand how the same political tactics that they’ve used before, going after liberal, liberal, liberal, that’s not going to work now because something has overshadowed it,” Brooks [said on Face the Nation Sunday]. “And that overshadowing, that economic anxiety is just going to dominate the next five weeks. There’s no way around that. And if they’re not touching that, then they’re not touching the core issue. And John McCain has not done it. And he hasn’t done it over the weekend, where they’ve been attacking Obama for being too liberal or not loving America enough.”
What’s your take?
back to top268 Comments to “Heels on, gloves off”
Well, I’m glad Ms. Palin is willing to bring this information out into the open. What they fear most is that people might do a little internet search and come up with the information that Obama worked for the guy and took money from him.
Radicals do not endorse people who are not radical. It’s that simple. And they can blow smoke and downplay it all they want. Once people realize Ayers did fundraising for Obama, perhaps they’ll think twice about who they want in the White House — at least those in the middle will. The leftys are a lost cause.
Report comment to moderator
She’s repeating talking points, wearing someone else’s heels. Not gonna help.
Report comment to moderator
McCain’s conceding Obama wins on the issues. Character assassination is all he has left. What a sad end for a once-great man.
Report comment to moderator
When the highest elected office in America is at stake, judgement is an issue.
Report comment to moderator
It’s about time that the Big BO’s associations with Ayers are brought into the big arena. This is something that the MSM SHOULD have done….and we’re left wondering why they didn’t?!?!?
A part of Palin’s charm is her boldness and willingness to take on the “big dogs”. This is in perfect alignment with what she should be doing.
Sarah Palin came to kick butt and kill caribou. And she’s all out of caribou!
Report comment to moderator
So SteveG – you’ll be happy and optimistic/enthusiastic when McCain/Palin win the White House and turn a chapter 31 sad story into a happy ending?
Didn’t think so. But thanks for the fake concern.
Report comment to moderator
Is taking the gloves off the Christian approach?
Report comment to moderator
So show me some evidence that these “associations” were anything more than any Chicago politician has with Ayers, who became a strong force. Show me a shred of evidence that Obama endorses or excuses Ayers’ past violence.
Because if you can’t — and I think you can’t — you’re engaging in innuendo and guilt by association rather than substance. Which is, I think, all that McCain has left.
Even the AP article that Kristin linked to in the post says: The accusation, based on Obama’s relatively recent connections with Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers, is unsubstantiated.
You have smears and innuendoes, and you call yourselves Christians while bearing false witness against your neighbor. You don’t have facts.
Serious George on judgment: Look up McCain’s role in the Keating Five.
Yesterday, Obama said at a rally: Senator McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas and running out of time.
Report comment to moderator
If McCain really wants to go after Obama he should focus on his association with characters like The “Rev”. Wright and “Rev”. Pleger.
Bring up a 1960’s aging hippie like Ayers makes McCain sound desperate.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – “Well, I’m glad Ms. Palin is willing to bring this information out into the open.”
You mean this issue?
“In 1995, Obama, then a young lawyer with political ambitions but as yet no office, was recruited to chair the board of a school reform organization funded and established by the Annenberg Foundation — a group that distributes the wealth of the estate of Walter Annenberg, Richard Nixon’s ambassador to Britain. It was only then that Obama met Ayers, who already was a board member and a figure in Chicago’s education-policy elite. (Mayor Richard Daley, that known radical, told the Times that he had consulted Ayers on education issues for years.)
Go join your city’s establishment, and see what it gets you.
As for “palling” around, McCain actually does pal around with enemies of the American economy:
But if the McCain people want to rummage through presidential candidates’ associations, real or imagined, to turn up figures who threaten to pull down this proud republic, they should begin in-house. Chief among those to whom responsibility attaches for the financial crisis that is plunging the nation into recession is former Texas senator Phil Gramm, McCain’s own economic guru.
Gramm was always Wall Street’s man in the Senate. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee during the Clinton administration, he consistently underfunded the Securities and Exchange Commission and kept it from stopping accounting firms from auditing corporations with which they had conflicts of interest. Gramm’s piece de resistance came on Dec. 15, 2000, when he slipped into an omnibus spending bill a provision called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), which prohibited any governmental regulation of credit default swaps, those insurance policies covering losses on securities in the event they went belly up. As the housing bubble ballooned, the face value of those swaps rose to a tidy $62 trillion. And as the housing bubble burst, those swaps became a massive pile of worthless paper, because no government agency had required the banks to set aside money to back them up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/06/ST2008100600738.html
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been reading Obama’s Dreams of My Father and while I am, admittedly, only six chapters in, I’m a little uneasy with the lens of racism by which he sees the world.
I don’t know if this is because I’m a white woman reading a book about the reaction of a hapa young man trying to figure out his place in the world without a father, or if Obama is really off base. He makes comments about his white grandparents which I find disturbing.
He even admits that to complain about racism in Hawaii is absurd–which I found to be true when I lived there. It should have been a safer place to explore your racial make up than other parts of the world. For my children who attended the same school, Hawaii provided an opportunity to learn what it means to be a minority and that experience was healthy for us.
What little I’ve heard about Obama’s relationships with the Chicago pols, Ayers, and his church, coupled with what I’ve been reading make really wonder about this man. But it also makes me wonder if I’m looking at his experience through eyes that cannot see what he’s talking about. Very confusing.
People probably have plumbed the depths of this memoir already and I just haven’t paid attention. I’m still not thrilled with McCain either. I’m not sure either man is up to the problems this nation confronts; but who is?
Which man loves America the most? Which one really understands America the most? World had an interesting article several issues ago noting both men spent formative parts of their lives living in the far east and the Pacific. When you’ve lived away like that, you tend to see the mainland US from a different perspective. The questions is, how distorted is your vision as a result?
Report comment to moderator
i was at Bob Jones University for the republican primaries in 2000 when McCain took the gloves off and attacked George W. Bush for his radical associations with radical fundamentalists like like Bob Jones University students. I think those attacks said more about McCain than about Bush, and it ummm… didn’t help him a whole lot.
Report comment to moderator
Palin has been accused of adultery, faking a pregnancy,and ignoring her children, but questioning an association of Obama is character assassination. Talk about doble standards.
SteveG. Domestic terrorism is an issue.
Report comment to moderator
Obama has called his grandmother “a typical white person”.
Imagine if McCain called anyone a “typical black person”.
Obama also called his grandmother a racist.
Think about what kind of person Obama must be to publicly ridicule his own grandmother (even if the charge was true).
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t going to work this time. I think David Brooks is right. McCain needs to talk about the issues, but the problem is his own fundamental weakness on the economy.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: SteveG. Domestic terrorism is an issue. Sure. And when you have some evidence that Obama engages in it or approves of it, it’ll even be relevant here.
But so far you don’t.
Palin has been accused of adultery, faking a pregnancy,and ignoring her children, but questioning an association of Obama is character assassination. Talk about doble standards.
Some Obama supporters have made those accusations. The Obama campaign has not. The McCain campaign is doing this officially.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle
Is it is possible that viewing the US from Hawaii or Alaska or as an expat may help you see the country better, that is more objectively and love America for what it is, warts and all?
On race, growing up mixed race myself, I can say that it is a thing you think about, quite alot actually. And things happen that make you think more, like a friend of mine in 7th grade home room who when her parents learned of my heritage basically told her not to associate with me. That was the first time I ever had an experience like that and it was both jarring and a little eye opening. So this kid went from talking to me and eating lunch with me on a near daily basis to not even acknowledging my presence. That kind of thing does make you think.
Report comment to moderator
To Coyoteblue
That is your rebuttal? A vague, anecdotal story that happened to you in the 7th grade?
Do you want any objective view of America? Hordes of non-white people are pouring into this country.
Their actions speak far, far louder than anything you could possibly say about how “racist” America is.
Report comment to moderator
I am confused CB and please excuse me if I am wrong, but didn’t you recently complain of your parents being racist and now you say that you are of mixed heritage?
The pain of having another child and their parents reject you and no longer be able to associate with you can be experienced from a lot more than race…mine was alcoholism. Beginning in 7th grade no parents would let their daughters spend the night or come to my house and I was therefore not invited to theirs.
Report comment to moderator
steveg #3 – Exactly how does one perform a character assassination on someone who lacks character? Or, one who covers up his true character? The most liberal = the most out of touch with mainstream America. How can he in good conscience distance himself from Rev. Wright after sitting in the pews of his church for 20 years, listening to him spout off his radicalism? If Palin is a right-winger, Obama is most definitely a left-winger.
Report comment to moderator
17. CB, So what, on my first job in a discount department store, I made friends with a black girl in my department. That ended when a couple of the other black employees told her to stop associating with “white trash”. Some individuals of all races are going to be stupid. My son hadn’t encountered any racism aimed personally at him yet, but I intend to teach him not to let idiots define his self image.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s close personal and political association with a cop-killing America-hating terrorist (and his anti-American Marxist-Leninist background and statements) should have precluded Obama from being elected dog-catcher, much less becoming a serious candidate for President.
The problem is that the media are largely controlled by like-minded enemies of America as well – and they have spear-headed the massive cover-up of the bizarre and disturbing past and ideology of Barack Obama; probably the largest coverup in the history of modern media. The media are aided and abetted in this by the usual servile types on the blogosphere and in other forums who have given up all ability to think for themselves and who are willing and witless slaves of the system.
It is alarming enough that a man who has expressed contempt and hatred of America, American values, and his fellow Americans should even be remotely close to achieving the Presidency of the US.
However, it is absolutely unbelievable that this same man also has well-documented – but largely unremarked – close associations (political, social, and economic) with known terrorists and murderers, has been intensively involved with and mentored for twenty years in an anti-American racist organization that makes the Phelps ‘church’ or the KKK look mild in comparison, and has organized groups of thugs to close down by intimidation and threats anyone who dares to criticize him, or who dares to proclaim the truth about his past.
But most reprehensible of all is the fawning servility of the media – and the bloggers and operatives in other forums – to their masters on the Left in covering this travesty up – the era of ethical and responsible journalism – or citizen integrity – is almost utterly dead.
Report comment to moderator
How many here know that Barack Obama has pledged to do away with the secret ballot if elected, the foundation of a free society, in labor votes, so that his thug supporters can intimidate and rig the vote?
And how long will it be until this will be enacted for civic ‘elections’ as well? – the Left and the media are becoming monolithic in this country in terms of censoring and shutting down dissent and information. It will not be long until you and I can expect to be personally muzzled – or silenced – or eliminated.
The Left has always been good about making their enemies fall silent through intimidation and oppression – or – if that fails – to disappear. Are those days almost upon the United States of America?
And this man, Barack Obama, is about to be ‘entrusted’ with the defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Report comment to moderator
For a good summary article on Obama’s real ties to Ayer’s: see
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_591517.html
Report comment to moderator
PaulR: If Palin is a right-winger, Obama is most definitely a left-winger.
He’s pretty mainstream liberal, despite the desperate attempts to paint him as “extreme,” and I think you’re gonna be surprised to find out how few voters see that as the liability you think it is.
As for Wright, it’s just like Ayers: She me some evidence that Obama holds the objectionable views or supports the bad behavior. Because otherwise, all you’ve got is “Obama knows this person who said or did those things.” Guilt by association. Yawn.
Report comment to moderator
Would people forget about Ayers?
He is now a harmless college professor. Obama was a child during Ayers’ heyday in the 1960’s.
Obama personal pastor of 20 years was the charlatan “Rev”. Wright. Yet Obama claims he didn’t knew about Wright’s racist rants. I find that far more disturbing.
Report comment to moderator
Earth to SteveG
Based on voting records Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of people who monitor voting patterns. But according to you he is “pretty mainstream”.
If McCain were friends with David Duke would you consider that noteworthy? Or would you just consider that “guilt by association” (your words).
Report comment to moderator
Based on voting records Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of people who monitor voting patterns. But according to you he is “pretty mainstream”.
I’ll go ahead here and feed the troll.
All that proves, is that the U.S. Senate is a pretty mainstream legislatve body, since even it’s most liberal member is hardly a “radical leftist.” I would also bet that even it’s most conservitive member isn’t a “radical rightwinger” either.
The true radicals, left and right, just don’t get elected. Though, it would be kind of nice if a few of them did, just to spice things up once in a while!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer:
re #1, will you also be glad when Mr. Obama is willing to bring out into the open McCain’s association with Charles Keating?
Let’s assume for a moment that Obama is being truthful when he says the Ayers association is minimal. The MSM supports this version of events so far, and no evidence of a deep association (beyond working on the same charity and Ayers hosting a campaign event) has yet come out. If this remains the case, the aggressive guilt-by-association is a disastrous strategy for McCain. In a time of economic crisis largely blamed on corporate greed and enabling politicians, America is about to be reminded of McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal.
If, on the other hand, Obama is outright lying or even being less than fully truthful about his relationship with Ayers, this will be damaging, but I still don’t think damaging enough to evaporate Obama’s solid lead this close to the election. At least, to change things at this point it would have to be a real doozy (they have a radical Muslim lovechild together, “Death to America” scrawled in Obama’s hand on one of Ayer’s pipebombs).
So again, as with Palin, McCain is gambling. As with Palin, I don’t think it’s going to pay off.
Report comment to moderator
What’s all this praise for “getting the issue out there”? It all came out in the primary and so far no one has added any new information to the story. I can’t remember who said it, but it was noted that in the primary the story was driven by the media and that gave coverage to the Clinton campaign. Palin is going out of her way to attack on a story that didn’t have legs. The shaky Republican’s are likely right.
Can everyone agree that this line of attack is not likely to move the national tracking numbers? And can everyone agree that if McCain doesn’t preform better in the debate tomorrow than he did in the last one, both the news cycle and the polls will continue to benefit Obama? I don’t think Bill Ayers is going to be the answer to any of the questions asked on Tuesday.
So what’s the point?
Report comment to moderator
steveg #25 – financial support for Rev. Wright’s church in 2007 was $26,270 or just over $500/week. While that may have been a small % of BHO’s 2007 AGI, it’s alot for the vast majority of us and most likely one of that church’s largest contributors.
Also, wasn’t he married by Rev. Wright? Or, at least, didn’t Rev. Wright baptize his daughters. Guilt by association? Hardly. He sat in the pew for 20 yrs. Disavowing his views was nothing more than political expediency.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/16/obama_releases_2007_tax_return.html
Report comment to moderator
Nick
I was not trying to rebut anything but to add perspective and conversation. The hordes of non-whites coming in, yeah I know some of those folks, they work hard and seek to improve their lives in ways that would not be possible where they are from. I can see why you get hysterical about it.
Kim
Yes, I did write about that. But I didn’t write about my own background in that post. My parents are Caucasian and 1/2 Indian and 1/2 Caucasian. When I was 16 my Mom told me that if she had known my Dad was American Indian when she married him, that she would not have done so. Great thing to tell your own kid.
KBells
I always wind up shaking my head when I hear stories like yours. You would think that people who have dealt with discrimination would know better than to perpetrate it. But they don’t. It’s sad and wrong whenever it happens.
Report comment to moderator
P.S.
I want to add (because someone should) that Bill Ayers is a principled man, a tireless advocate for better education and a better America, and a genuinely admirable person.
Who has also, never killed a cop! I’m not sure where that one is coming from. Ayers wasn’t involved in the Brinks robbery. Ayers and Dohrn had already turned themselves in by 1981. The only involvement they had to that event was becoming the legal guardians of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin son after they were sent to prison.
Report comment to moderator
I keep hearing the “Obama is the most liberal senator” line from the right, with nary a link to support it.
Anyone got one? Because govtrack.us has Obama at center-left, and McCain smack in the middle.
Besides, I thought John Kerry was the most liberal member of the senate. I do not doubt that if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, she would be “the most liberal member of the senate.”
In short, I have a strong suspicion that you guys are making up this statistic.
Report comment to moderator
Silly SteveG – Instead of yawning…you should focus your tired mind on fact finding.
In 1995, Ayers hosted a brunch for Obama, who was running for the Illinois Senate. A launching of Obama’s political career is far from “casual”, SteveG.
In 1997, they were on a juvenile justice panel sponsored by the University of Chicago. They were on a 2002 panel on intellectualism that was co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library. They’re both so interested in the same things, that they just keep “bumping” into each other. Casually, of course.
In 1997, the Chicago Tribune published a blurb from Obama about books he was reading. Obama said he was reading Ayers’ A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court. The Big BO found Ayers so “YAWN” boring that he read a book written by the unrepentant terrorist.
From 1999-2002, both men were on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago foundation that makes grants to arts and civic groups. Obama left the board in 2002; Ayers remains on it. I’m sure they only shared a Coke from the vending machine. You go ahead and believe it SteveG.
Ayers gave $200 to Obama’s 2001 state Senate campaign. I don’t know about you, but I’m always kickin’ out a couple hundred bucks to people who mean absolutely nothing to me.
None of these above items are in dispute by either the Big BO or his campaign. And there is no constestation of Ayers being an unrepentant terrorist.
But you just hang, however tentatively, on to your BO; SteveG. Maybe when he coughs up a hairball in the election, you can console him with a nice Risati.
Report comment to moderator
jjf#34
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/16/obama_releases_2007_tax_return.html
but you’ll probably disagree since it doesn’t agree with your view of the world
Report comment to moderator
Re 33 – Luke called Ayers a “principled man”. However – he failed to define or dictate what those principles might be….
How about this?
In a New York Times story published by coincidence on Sept. 11, 2001, about his memoirs, Fugitive Days, he said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. … I feel we didn’t do enough.”
‘Nuff said.
Report comment to moderator
SUSA has Obama up by 10 in Virginia as of today. I guess McCain/Palin are so desperate they have to resort to character attacks, it’s all they’ve got.
Report comment to moderator
#37. Ayers isn’t the story. McCain’s sad little campaign is.
Report comment to moderator
Somebody brilliant and maybe even a little bit prescient said this:
Oh, snap.
And McCain responds disastrously. He completely undermines the penitent-politico image that bought him back into the public’s graces as a hard-core reformer of a dirty system, a man who had been burned once so was now beyond corruption. That thing he was really sorry about getting too close to and he’ll never do it again and in fact he’s back to clean up the act now?
It was all a hit job in the first place.
What? A hit job? So that thing you were sorry for, that thing you came back to reform and make sure it never happened again, it was a completely bogus trumped-up charge in the first place?
Report comment to moderator
PaulR:
The link you sent was a story about Obama (admirably) releasing his tax returns immediately. What has that to do with anything?
Report comment to moderator
Mickel: All of which means that in Obama’s political career, he and Ayers had some shared political goals and Ayers supported Obama’s efforts, and they served on some of the same boards.
None of which is any secret. Obama has not ever, to my knowledge, expressed any approval of Ayers’ radical past. You can deal with a person today without endorsing something they did 30 or 40 years ago.
But yeah, let’s talk about Bill Ayers/Obama and Charles Keating/McCain and see which one voters are more troubled by.
Report comment to moderator
Nice non-rebuttal Luke – Palin bringing up the Big BO’s association with your “principled man” IS the story.
That swirling sensation you’re sensing is the Big BO’s campaign settling to the bottom of the bowl on a journey down the big pipe.
Coyote – hang on to that poll. You can use it after the election while using your bidet.
Report comment to moderator
Mickel
Suffolk is even higher. I think Obama will take Va. And Warner will win easily in the state. NC is tougher to call, but my partner’s relatives, who live there and are life long republicans think NC will go blue this year. McCain has a tough upward climb at this point in the election.
Report comment to moderator
In the last week Obama called McCain “erratic”. Imagine calling a 72 year old man erratic. Do you think that was a slip of the tongue?
But according to some people on this blog it is McCain and Palin who have launched personal attacks.
Report comment to moderator
Nick Peters: If McCain were friends with David Duke would you consider that noteworthy? Or would you just consider that “guilt by association” (your words).
If McCain and Duke were personal friends and McCain showed no evidence of agreeing with Duke’s racism, yes, I would not consider that a reflection on McCain. On the other hand, if McCain was running for office and his platform included some of those ideas, then it would be a problem.
It’s all about the nature of the relationship.
Report comment to moderator
As for the “most liberal” line, see #28 and #34. I agree with them.
Report comment to moderator
jjf #41 – sorry, wrong link (that was the one pertaining to Obama’s support of Rev. Wright’s church and , by extension, Rev. Wright.
try this
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Report comment to moderator
42 – “All of which means that in Obama’s political career, he and Ayers had some shared political goals and Ayers supported Obama’s efforts, and they served on some of the same boards.”
Thanks for being backboned enough to admit it SteveG – now refer to your post in #8. Your limp “innuendo” lament can be filed in the round “out” bin.
Of course the Big BO didn’t verbally express approval of Ayer’s radical past. But your assertion about “endorsement” is pretty thin. If I didn’t want to associate with eugenics advocates; for instance; I wouldn’t associate with Margaret Sanger or the Big BO, for example. But you’re probably right. There are so MANY American terrorists to chummy up to…I suppose the Big BO couldn’t help rubbing elbows with Ayers.
Good point SteveG.
Report comment to moderator
Re – 27 Nick – the Big BO was rated as the #1 lib in congress – wasn’t Biden ranked at #3?
Sorry for the derail there folks….back to this most engaging conversation.
Report comment to moderator
But according to the Christian Science Monitor, this new campaign strategy is leaving some conservatives uneasy, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, who doesn’t believe a negative campaign can be successful:
I’m glad to see that David Brooks has finally picked up on what I’ve been saying since the start of the year.
I just have a sense that the “politics of personal destruction” is going to work this time. The American people are weary of it and it’s losing it’s ability to move significant numbers of people. Of course, nothing is for sure because people are easily manipulated by negative emotional appeals. So, I’m not ready to dance on it’s grave stone yet.
What’s sadder is that the CCR’s have decided to go “whole hog” for the “politics of personal destruction” tactic. Now, lying, slander, distortion, innuendo and rumor-mongering are all “Christ approved” as long as it’s done on behalf of the GOP (God’s Own Party). But that’s what happens when you lose your moral compass.
Report comment to moderator
As Obama Blasts McCain On Keating Five His Campaign Features Another Alum Of That Scandal
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/as_obama_blasts_mccain_on_keating_five_his_campaign_features_another_alum_o/
Yes, John Glenn, who is campaigning for BO. But both were cleared of any wrong doing. Looks like BO is trying the “by association” stuff too. Why aren’t you libs pointing it out when BO does it? If it’s wrong for McCain, why is it OK for BO to do? Looks like do as we say, not as we do to me.
From the link;
“The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[45] He was only criticized by the Committee for “poor judgment.”[48]
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[46][45] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf.[7] The report also said that McCain’s “actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him….Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.”[49] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: “The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”
Report comment to moderator
Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.
This charge is unsubstantiated.
Gen. David Petraeus exchages hospitality with Iraqi terrorists who have targeted American people and assets. Sen. John McCain voted to fund the payment of bribes and subsidies for thousands who have committed acts of terrorism against us — and could do so again.
Gov. Palin is not dedicated enough to the war on terror to notice the tense of terrorist threats and to distinguish the difference between present danger and 40-year-old attacks against property.
“Palling around with terrorists” is a felony whose technical name is providing material assistance to terrorism. People get sent to Guantanamo for less. If Gov. Palin believed herself, she would call on the Atty. Gen. to launch an investigation of Obama.
Bill Ayers isn’t a terrorist, he’s a do-gooder who condemns violence against persons. The government did not indict him for his actions in the Weather Underground (when Obama was 8 years old). Ayers has been rehabilitated by the Chicago establishment. He volunteered for some of the same prominent, philanthropic foundations for which Obama volunteered, and he hosted a coffee for Obama’s first run for office. However, the men do not have a private relationship.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah BO hardly knows the guy. The fact that Michelle invited both to speak together in 1997 is just another coincidence.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml
“William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court (Beacon Press, 1997), says “We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn’t suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?”
Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 20, in the C-Shop. The panel, which marks the 100th anniversary of the juvenile justice system in the United States, is part of the Community Service Center’s monthly discussion series on issues affecting the city of Chicago. The event is free and open to the public.
Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system”
Hmmm…working to combat legislation that would put juvenile murderers into the adult system. I guess that’s what they mean by community organizer. Letting murderers back on the street early, as juvenile justice does, doesn’t sound very good for the community.
Report comment to moderator
Why do they call it negative campaigning if McCain does it, and truth if Obama does it? The people who say “negative” campaigning won’t work are those who don’t want the truth about Obama anywhere in people’s minds.
Report comment to moderator
Once again we are seeing our society/electorate put far more emphasis on credentials/resume and far less on character of the candidate.
If they fire that gal Hesselbeck from “The View” wouldnt you love to see Sarah Palin as one of the cohostesses? They need an actual conservative.
Report comment to moderator
Since the Keating Five affair was so long ago and my attentiveness to it at the time pretty minimal, I went to Wikipedia for a review. Here’s the conclusion on McCain:
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf. The report also said that McCain’s “actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him….Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.” On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: “The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”
You can read the whole Wikipedia story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
There is a chapter on The Keating Five affair in The Arizona Republic’s March 2007 profile of McCain: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter7.html
A few points and impressions that stand out to me from these two sources:
* This took place 20 years ago.
* McCain was the new junior senator from Arizona. He was a reluctant participant dragged in by Dennis DeConcini, Arizona’s senior senator, and remained mostly passive in the meetings.
* He was cleared of the charges.
* He accepted the Ethics Committee’s conclusion that he used poor judgement in being at the meetings in question.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
re 51 – “What’s sadder is that the CCR’s have decided to go “whole hog” for the “politics of personal destruction” tactic. Now, lying, slander, distortion, innuendo and rumor-mongering are all “Christ approved” as long as it’s done on behalf of the GOP (God’s Own Party). But that’s what happens when you lose your moral compass.”
Huh? Anlir – see post #35. The points laid out are true. So…where’s the lie? Where’s the distortion? The innuendo?
You know there IS a difference between a lost moral compass, and one that never pointed true “north” in the first place. Something lost always has the possibility to be found.
Report comment to moderator
What’s a CCR?
Report comment to moderator
Luke says: “I want to add (because someone should) that Bill Ayers is a principled man, a tireless advocate for better education and a better America, and a genuinely admirable person”
From link given above in #24
Between 1969 and 1974, the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for some 20 bombings in the United States — at police stations, banks, jails, courthouses, the Capitol and the Pentagon. Ayers became a fugitive in 1970, reports Andy McCarthy at the National Review, after three of his cohorts were “accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers’ specifications — Ayers was a bomb designer — went off during construction.”
The explosive, a nail bomb, “had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey,” reports McCarthy. “Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, ‘tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.’”
Ayers, describing the Weather Underground as “an American Red Army,” motivated by “hope,” succinctly summed up the organization’s mission: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments.”
“I don’t regret setting bombs,” Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001. “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Obama is close friends with Ayers and has communicated regularly with him until shortly before his Presidential bid.
Now we know what the resident leftist global plantation slaves mean when they call Obama a principled man and admirable
Report comment to moderator
This is on the FRONT PAGE of DRUDGE again today!
Report comment to moderator
This is not the FRONT PAGE of DRUDGE TODAY! If McCain wants to LOOK BACK, let’s look back at THE KEATING FIVE.
Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone know about Obama’s involvement in sending the FBI after a group that is researching Obama’s past? And what about the police in one state arresting people who pay for “misleading” ads against him? By the time they go to court to prove what they said is true Obama will be President. What will happen, or has already happened, to freedom of speech? Freedom of speech for liberals only? (Obama has even called people out for labeling him a liberal.) It’s really getting creepy.
Report comment to moderator
Gov. Palin and other right-wing Christians are such good liars, they even suckered me!
Now as a consequence, I have to correct myself. At #53 above I said incorrectly that Ayers “hosted a coffee for Obama’s first run for office.” The fact is, Ayers hosted the 1995 coffee for Ill. State Sen. Alice Palmer not for Obama. Obama attended as Palmer’s guest.
Report comment to moderator
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard?
Mystery man in senator’s memoir now revealed as disciple of socialist agitator
September 24, 2008
Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight – a loyal student of Alinsky’s radical tactics – to pen the Harvard letter in the late 1980s. McKnight serves on the boards of radically anti-American groups in Chicago, including one accused of thuggery.
Obama in his 2006 memoir alludes to McKnight – whom he describes as an “older man who had been active in the civil rights efforts in Chicago in the sixties” – but stops short of identifying him by name. He referred to him only as “my friend.”
http://tinyurl.com/3ooldk
Report comment to moderator
The Ayers myth gets pretty thin pretty fast. A fun distraction for a day or so. Then, back to the economy and Keating Five.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: “I don’t regret setting bombs,” Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001. “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Funny how the “liberal” New York Times suddenly becomes a credible source when something in it supports what you want to believe.
Too bad for you, Ayers says that article completely misrepresented his views:
Smith’s angle is captured in the Times headline: “No regrets for a love of explosives” (September 11, 2001). She and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.
Letter reprinted here.
Report comment to moderator
66-
Report comment to moderator
LUMPS – 63
Oh YES IT IS – Left hand side near the top!
TEENS PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OBAMA… (see link post 62)
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Report comment to moderator
Know Enough?
http://tinyurl.com/63akey
Report comment to moderator
Of course it is…
Drudge and WingNutDaily? What’s that scent? Why, it’s ‘Desperation’
Report comment to moderator
DOW: 9,571.36 (-754.02)
Report comment to moderator
re 68 – “Funny how the “liberal” New York Times suddenly becomes a credible source when something in it supports what you want to believe.”
What’s really “funny” is how the NYT slammed a hater of America instead of recommending him to be a tearful guest on Oprah.
KevinB – “CCR” is a well known band led by singer/songwriter/guitarist John Fogarty. I know, I know. It makes no sense in context; but, consider the source.
Report comment to moderator
Know Enough?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY
Report comment to moderator
re 67 – “, back to the economy …” I thought the purple dino…er, Barney, Pelosi, and Reid, and not to leave out the Big BO already fixed that for us….??!?!?!
Report comment to moderator
“It isn’t going to work this time.”
Well, McCain will talk about issues. Watch the debate tomorrow. Let the pitbulling be Ms. Palin’s bailiwick.
I will say again, if you are an honest person, you will not take money from someone who is a radical if you want to appeal to all Americans. He took money from the guy, he worked for the guy, and now you want to deny it and call any mention of these facts as “swiftboating.”
If it ain’t true, you’ve got nothing to worry about. I only wish I had had access to FoxNews to see the progam Victoria has told us about. So far, haven’t seen one from MSM. The leftys here can call it the politics of personal destruction (you’d think they come up with different words for that tired old phrase), but all this is is telling the facts. Dear leftys, if you aren’t ashamed that your candidate has been hanging around radicals, and you don’t seem to be, what’s the problem? Afraid of an informed electorate?
McCain was cleared of wrongdoing with respect to the Keating affair.
It ain’t over til it’s over.
Report comment to moderator
It is also amusing that no one remembers Anlir’s meaning for “CCR.”
Report comment to moderator
NJL – I was just being witty about the Fogarty comment to KevinB – I assumed that Anlir was meaning Conservative Christian Right…
Is that not correct?
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Christian Republican? Isn’t that it?
Report comment to moderator
CCR? Wasn’t that a band? I mean, just as long as we’re talking the 70s…
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: I will say again, if you are an honest person, you will not take money from someone who is a radical if you want to appeal to all Americans. He took money from the guy, he worked for the guy, and now you want to deny it and call any mention of these facts as “swiftboating.”
I have not denied that Ayers made contributions to Obama’s campaign. I’m sure Ayers’ two hundred bucks put Obama over the top. I also have not denied that they’ve served on boards and organizations together. I don’t know about Obama working FOR (as opposed to alongside) Ayers.
What I do dispute is that their so-called connection goes any farther than that. To suggest that because they knew each other and Obama didn’t immediately shun Ayers, more than 25 years after Ayers’ radical activities, somehow means that Obama approves of those tactics IS classic smear ‘n’ fear.
And so far, nobody’s produced any evidence of such approval. They just turn up the volume on the same old “but … but they KNOW each other!” claim.
Report comment to moderator
Mickel: I was just being witty about the Fogarty comment to KevinB – I assumed that Anlir was meaning Conservative Christian Right…
Wait … I must have missed the witty part. Can you point it out?
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: . . . he took money from the guy . . .
There’s taking money from a guy and then there’s receiving a $200 contribution from a guy for your re-election to the state senate.
NJLAWYER: . . . he worked for the guy . . .
Obama attended meetings with him, he didn’t work for him. The chair of a foundation board is not the boss of the members of the board.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Oh Stevie…the bitterness just exudes from your pores….you should try a better brand of kool-aid.
You could write for the Big BO’s campaign, or the Daily KO’s … oops, maybe they’re the same entity.
Let’s just say the Big BO was working alongside Ayers, and not for him. Is that REALLY better? Lessee…I’m working FOR a guy who was making a bomb to kill policemen…OR…I’m working ALONGSIDE with a guy who was making a bomb to kill policemen.
Your choice of describing it really IS better SteveG…
Report comment to moderator
John McCain worked for Charles Keating.
Report comment to moderator
For those in politics, the $200 is pretty normal for certain kind of gatherings. Generous, but not excessively so. At that level, you end up on national databases, but that’s about it.
This weekend around our parts, we have a fundraiser for a Supreme Court justice with suggested contributions running $250 / $100. That seems to be order of things in both parties.
So the money is more a reflection of the disposable income of the giver — and remember (if you forgot), Ayers is well-off, not because he’s a professor (tho’ two incomes would do it), but also because his dad was CEO of Commonwealth Edison. So for the circles he travels in, the money seems pretty standard.
(Oooh, missed the Fogarty reference from Mickel — thought he was some obscure pol!)
Report comment to moderator
Ayers held a fundraiser IN HIS HOME. You don’t hold a fundraiser for someone who has different views than yourself, and you don’t accept money from that fundraiser if you don’t approve of his activities. There is no good reason for Obama to accept Ayers money or money from a fundraiser in his home. Ayers was stomping on the US flag in 2001 — and Obama knew it.
They worked on the same board. Ayers hired Obama to be on that board. Ayers made presentations there, too. What kind of a person works for a radical whose goal it is to re-educate children? This is why Obama didn’t want Michelle’s activities looked into either.
Board members know each other, and they know each other well.
Are you guys really THAT dense, that brainwashed?
Report comment to moderator
And also, she’s Palin’ around with secessionists who would break away from their own country, the United States of America. Not only that, she’s shacked up with one of ‘em!
Report comment to moderator
Mickel: Find me some evidence that Obama supports bombing. Until then, all you’ve got is association, and you’ve made all of that you can (not much).
Obama met Ayers in 1995. Both were part of the Chicago political establishment, Ayers had left his radical days long behind, and you are trying to invent a terrorism affinity that doesn’t exist.
When Christ calls you to account for bearing this false witness, what will you say?
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 89
Yes they are – they can’t see it because it ruins all their dreams regarding socialism -
Report comment to moderator
CCR = conservative Christian Republican
This whole Obama/Ayer’s matter is a smear campaign tactic of the lowest order. It’s a desperate attempt to distract the American people from the issues that matter in this election: health care, the mortgage/financial crisis, the war, rising unemployment, and the economy.
I predicted six months ago that the smears, lies, rumors, and innuendo would rise to a crescendo on here. We’re now seeing it’s full blossoming on here. But if Jesus is proud of them, that’s all that matters, right?
When you’ve lost your moral compass, as the CCR’s surely have, anything goes. Duck and cover.
“McCain/Palin: Because America hasn’t suffered enough!”
Report comment to moderator
John McCain voted twice to support domestic terrorism, by the way.
Back in ‘93 the Senate passed a bill that would “prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions.”
John McCain voted against this. Twice. So obviously, he supports shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses.
At least that’s true by the logic Mickel and NJLawyer are offering us.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 91
When did you start to worry about what Christ says? When did you become accountable to Christ? Last but not least, when did you become accountable for bearing false witness regarding what the Bible says?
Report comment to moderator
#89 NJL is a lawyer that’s failin’ logic.
She’s just not wrappin’ her head around that goshdarn ol’ association fallacy.
Er, maybe she does get it but is just tryin’ to be foolin’ the jury.
Report comment to moderator
By NJL/Victoria logic, y’all oughtta not be bein’ Christians, on accounta who that Jesus feller was pallin’ around with!
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER, of course Obama knew about Ayers’ leftist politics, but why should he care? That’s no reason for Obama to stop his philanthropic activities on behalf of prominent foundations.
As Gen. Petraeus shows us by example, when former radicals want to join the establishment, we should bend over backwards to forgive and forget and allow them to contribute to peace and prosperity!
Obama never partnered with Ayers. They had no personal relationship. Their professional association was structured by establishment organizations.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting you should say that, NJL.
We all know about John McCain’s gorilla rape joke. The one where his punch line is that the woman enjoyed being brutally raped?
One of McCain’s fundraisers, Clayton Williams, who raised more than $300,000.00 for McCain, also tells a rape joke, this one comparing rape to the weather.
Williams on Rape: “As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”
It’s no wonder McCain tapped Sarah Palin, whose town of Wasilla charged rape victims for gathering the evidence of their assault, and would have the courts force rape victims have the rapists babies.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t the Bush’s hold a fundraiser for McCain?
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t Ralph Reed hold a fundraiser for McCain?
Report comment to moderator
Between Mickel, NJLawyer and Victoria, the smell of desperation is becoming thick.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t indicted war profiteer Henry Sargeant hold a fundraiser for McCain?
Report comment to moderator
102-
Indeeeeedly-do, yabetcha, also.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t feel desperate at all. If your candidate were as great as you seem to think he is, considering the economy, he’d have a larger lead. He doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, do you smell fear?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: You don’t get off the hook on your own standards. YOU believe you will be called to account. YOU believe your God commands you to not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Despite the way many CCRs behave, there’s no asterisk next to that Commandment and a footnote saying it’s ok to lie if the target is a Democrat. You’re not to bear false witness.
And yet here you, and several of your co-religionists, are trying to desperately to portray Obama as a friend of terrorists and a brainwasher of youth, even though neither are true.
So, you believe that one day Christ will demand an account. Doesn’t matter whether I believe that or not, YOU do. So, what do you plan to say to justify your shameful actions and claims?
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t G. Gordon Liddy hold a fundraiser for McCain?
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, I would care. A person with judgment would not want to be tainted by Ayers — there is that thing called “the appearance of impropriety.”
He worked with Ayers, he’s spent time with him. I’ve never spent ANY time with a radical — except in a courtroom when they were on trial.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Scroop – #98 – careful with your use of absolutes…else SteveG is going to bop you with his little silver hammer concerning “proof”.
Report comment to moderator
If your candidate were as great as you seem to think he is, considering the economy, he’d have a larger lead. He doesn’t.
You don’t think so, NJLawyer? I’d say a 10-point lead in reliable red-state Virginia is pretty healthy.
How about eight points in New Mexico?
Six points in Pennsylvania?
I think he’s doing just fine.
Report comment to moderator
NJL –
The fear is mounting – The DEM’s were hoping that Ayers – Alinsky – Gamaliel volcano would never erupt and here it is, covering the entire political campaign -
Report comment to moderator
NJL – I don’t feel desperate at all. If your candidate were as great as you seem to think he is, considering the economy, he’d have a larger lead. He doesn’t.
Larger than this?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the highest level of support ever recorded for Obama and is his largest lead of the year. It also continues a remarkable twenty-five days in a row where the Democrat’s support has never declined by even a single point. The Democratic candidate has gained six full percentage points of support since Lehman Brothers collapsed to start the Wall Street mess (see trends).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Battleground states look pretty uniformly blue as well…
Who’s feelin’ fear? The McPain campaign, that’s who. How else to explain the sudden goin’ negative thing. Not very mavericky.
Report comment to moderator
“Between Mickel, NJLawyer and Victoria, the smell of desperation is becoming thick.”
The only smell I can discern is the smell of the Big BO…
…and personally SteveG…I WELCOME the day when I will be on both humbled knees in front of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
NJL- 105
I do love you so.
Two weeks ago McCain was ahead by a nose or tied.
Today:
————————Obama——–McCain
Research 2000: 52 (52) 40 (40) +12 O
Rasmussen: 52 (51) 44 (44) +8 O
Battleground: 50 (49) 43 (46) +7 O
Gallup Daily: 50 (50) 42 (43) +8 O
inTrade: 67.5 (65.6) 33.2 (34) O
Yesterday:
Diageo/Hotline: 48 (48) 41 (41) +7 O
Gallup Daily: 50 (50) 43 (42) +7 O
Report comment to moderator
#112 Victoria seems to think the entire campaign consists largely of … her!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Scroopy, I would care. A person with judgment would not want to be tainted by Ayers — there is that thing called “the appearance of impropriety.”
So you would refuse to work with anybody who ever did anything seriously wrong? Even if it was decades ago and nothing like they’d do now? Even if they’re working on causes you also feel passionate about and your choices are to either serve on some boards with the person or not work on the cause?
I don’t believe you. I think you’re just taking this stand because it helps you in your efforts to smear a candidate you hate. If McCain had served on a board with someone who had been a radical 30 years before, I expect you would see it as I see Obama’s role here.
Report comment to moderator
Re – 113: “Who’s feelin’ fear? The McPain campaign, that’s who. How else to explain the sudden goin’ negative thing. Not very mavericky.
Oh yes, to a liberal truth is negative. Is that bearing false witness?
Report comment to moderator
Mickel: McCain knows he can’t win the election by arguing that he can solve our problems. So he’s attacking character. Whether true or not, it’s a clear sign of his desperation.
Report comment to moderator
Re 117: “So you would refuse to work with anybody who ever did anything seriously wrong?”
Define “seriously wrong”. Jaywalker? Nope. Former paper-clip purloiner from the company store-room? Nope. Slapped his wife and called her a ‘ho’? Maybe. Designed and built a bomb to murder people?
Absolutely. And the Big BO is, at the very least, a close confidant/neighbor/political ally of his.
Telling. No?
Report comment to moderator
Re 119: “Mickel: McCain knows he can’t win the election by arguing that he can solve our problems. So he’s attacking character. Whether true or not, it’s a clear sign of his desperation.”
Got proof?
Report comment to moderator
Mickel-
I got a chuckle out of your post. When was the last time you saw an ad by the McCain Campaign about McCain or what he wants to do?
Hint: There hasn’t been one in a long time
Palin-McCain: Negative is all we gots, yabetch, wink, dontchaknow, also. That.
Report comment to moderator
To Mickel, Victoria, NJ Lawyer
As someone who doesn’t like McCain or Obama I can look at this with a detached point of view.
Looking at the Electoral College ( the one thing that really matters) it is pretty much Obama’s race to win. McCain just recently conceded Michigan to Obama (just one example).
McCain doesn’t have very many options left. As an incredibly bland candidate he excites no one. Attacking Obama is pretty much all he has left.
Report comment to moderator
The irony of trying to go negative on such a tenuous relationship dating back to an associates’ activities 40 years ago, when Sarah Palin herself sleeps every night with a man who belongs to a party which advocates secession from the Union she seeks to head, seems to escape many.
Report comment to moderator
Nick
YOU WRITE:… “As someone who doesn’t like McCain or Obama I can look at this with a detached point of view.”
I don’t consider you “detached” in the least – there are lots of people just like you who are ready to play the NEUTRAL position even though it doesn’t fit. Don’t bother to play this one with me, it won’t work, LOL
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase NJL, radicals only sleep with radicals they agree with.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, do you read this stuff before you post it, or do you just twirl the words and let’m fly? LOL
Report comment to moderator
“Negatives is all we got”. Gee lumpy – that reminds me of your post!!
I see you’re having fun practicing at disparaging the next VP. I don’t blame you. I think it would have been fun to poke at “Klingon” Joe Biden for four years. Thank the Lord, you-bethca, I won’t have to find out golly-gee-willikers!
It really has been a hoot folks. But I’ve got to go. Miss me? HA! All this forum really amounted to today was folks getting pent up angst of the ol’ chest-a-roonie, shucks a howdy.
All the neutrals like Nick will just have to vote for the Green candidate…um…??…his name was…
Oh just write in Brett Favre. He’s old, but he doesn’t want the job, so he’d do pretty darn tootin’ good there ya bethca!
Report comment to moderator
Now that is ironic.
Report comment to moderator
These polls have my head spinning. Headed for a historic defeat, the Republican party has chosen Sarah Palin as its future leader. God sheds His grace on us, from sea to shining sea.
Report comment to moderator
Several people continue to repeat “McCain and Keating” without explaining exactly what terrible thing McCain did. RPN’s link in #63 ties McCain to the Keating Five story and then recaps that whole story in generalities, again without saying what McCain did. So here are a few specific facts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five:
1. Five senators met on two occasions in April, 1987, with representatives of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, pressuring the Board to back off from an investigation of Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan. This was especially bad because all of them had received campaign contributions from Keating.
2. McCain, then Arizona’s brand-new junior senator, was pulled into those meetings reluctantly under pressure from Arizona’s senior senator, Dennis DeConcini. (McCain’s reluctance to get involved led Keating to call him a “wimp”.)
3. Of the five, McCain and John Glenn were cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee of any violations of laws or Senate rules. They were criticized only for poor judgement in being part of the meetings. By contrast, the other three were found to have acted improperly by interfering with the Board’s investigation of Lincoln. One of them, Alan Cranston, was reprimanded in a formal session of the full Senate.
4. McCain’s comments afterward acknowledged his poor judgement.
If you really think this should be an issue in the 2008 election, please explain why, considering the facts of the case.
Report comment to moderator
Post 85 is total malarky from a widely discredited book. You see its this kind of false sliming which makes me suspicious of anything the right wing is putting out, absolutely anything. Ya’ll have lost sight of basic truthtelling.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Do you believe the VP/Pres should be sleeping with someone who advocates dissolution of the country? Do you deny that that is what Ms. Palin is doing?
But hey, we went down that road before and it only cost us a couple million lives…
Report comment to moderator
Kev-
It speaks to John McCain’s poor judgment, and the friends he keeps.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I never said anything about sleeping with anybody. That’s just crass.
Try these on for size:
http://www.gamaliel.org/Employment/NewOrganizerBookList.htm
The reading list for newbies — yes, it includes books by Alinsky! And do you know what Alinsky’s mantra was? Yes, you guessed it! CHANGE!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2066924/posts
National Review article “Senator Stealth” by Kurtz, September 1, 2008
It ain’t over til its over.
Report comment to moderator
Did you know McCain’s son was director of a bank that failed this year?
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — State and federal regulators shut down Nevada’s Silver State Bank late Friday. It was the 11th bank to fail in the U.S. so far this year.
The bank, which was overexposed to risky real-estate loans, had almost $2 billion in assets and 17 branches in Nevada and Arizona.
Until six weeks ago, Andrew McCain, the son of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, was a member of Silver State’s board and also its three-member audit committee. Andrew McCain left the Henderson, Nev., bank July 26 after five months on the board, citing “personal reasons.” He is Sen. McCain’s adopted son from his first marriage.
Report comment to moderator
I never said anything about sleeping with anyone. That’s just crass. McCain isn’t attacking character. He’s attacking a lack of character and radical, socialist ties.
I tried to post the links, but it won’t let me.
So put in Gamaliel Foundation and go to at least the second page. You will find
Employment/NewOrganizerBookList
Reading list for newbies: Alinsky! And what was his mantra? CHANGE.
And check out the September 1, 2008 article called “Stealth Senator” by Kurtz explaining it all. (National Review)
What you are in favor of is appalling, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
It ain’t over til it’s over.
Report comment to moderator
McCain’s friends don’t stomp on American flags.
Report comment to moderator
John McCain, who decried the use of the “politics of personal destruction” in 2000, has decided it’s his last best hope for capturing the White House. What a huge moral fall he has taken.
Here’s the problem with the Republican Party: They’ve been running a negative campaign from the very start (actually since the 2006 mid-term elections). They have no new ideas to deal with the problems that confront us. So now they’ve decided to campaign on personalities rather than the issues.
Will it work? It might. But then you have a country that’s even more polarized than ever. You cannot govern a country effectively where you have won by the politics of personal destruction and inflaming divisions. It makes the political atmosphere in Washington too toxic to get anything done.
Reading the NY Times Magazine article yesterday about Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) who is quitting Congress was a real eye-opener on what’s wrong with the Republican Party and Washington. Here is a guy who came into Washington with Newt Gingrich, fought the good fight, and is giving up.
Report comment to moderator
Nope. THey raid the banks and have the taxpayers foot the bill.
Report comment to moderator
The Keating rejoinder is a rhetorical dog that not only won’t run, but doesn’t even move off the porch. It’s an attempt on the part of the left not to be outdone in the arena of limp innuendo. The Ayers issue is pretty lame. The Keating Five response? That one’s got no legs at all.
KEVINB — You can add this to your list:
5. “It was clear that McCain should not have been at the table nor should Glenn. I felt it was unfair for McCain to be included as part of the Keating Five.” — Bob Bennett, Senate Investigator, Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
I note that none of our resident leftys will even touch the reading list of the Gamiliel Foundation. Afraid of Alinsky, are we? Afraid of Kurtz’ article?
Yes, the MSM mentioned the character issue, but it won’t look into it.
Report comment to moderator
Well, we wouldn’t want a polarized nation. Let’s all become socialists and stomp on the flag.
Report comment to moderator
Or — let’s all vote for the man most Americans believe is best able to lead us through this economic crisis brought on by the deregulation McCain has championed over decades. Obama!
Report comment to moderator
If McCain and friends thought Ayers would be a campaign breaker they would’ve started earlier and hammered it continually. They didn’t because they realized the link between events forty years ago and Obama were too tenuous.
McCain began the post-primary campaign with an emphasis on experience and judgment. However, he gave that issue away with the nomination of Palin.
McCain also attempted to ride his foreign affairs credentials but was sabotaged by Bush and Malki. After critizing Obama as cut and run etc, both Malki and Bush came up with similar timetabled departure plans.
Now the economy has become the primary issue which is always bad for the incumbent party. McCain was never known for his economic knowledge and his adviser just finished calling America a nation of whiners. As banks and insurance companies fall, McCain’s deregulation efforts and Keating Five past became relevant. Interestingly, its the appearance of impropriety that upset him. By suspending and then not suspending his campaign, canceling Letterman but then appearing with Couric, crashing Washington in time for a deal to fall apart, he didn’t give the American people the sense of confidence they needed instead he impressed upon them the need to panic.
With experience, foreign affairs, and the economy no longer possible as the central theme of his campaign, he is left with personal attacks. When people realize you are at a disadvantage, personal attacks look like desperation not a sign of strength.
Report comment to moderator
It’s is simply hilarious to watch the CCR’s flailing away on here! They’re trying to throw up everything they can in hopes that something will stick.
The thing is, most of America already heard all this stuff about Ayers, Rezko, and Alinski and decided that while there may be some smoke, there is no “Fire!” like the partisan Republicans are screaming.
The other problem is that the Republicans have their own “unsavory characters” they’re associated with. Plus they’ve still got the label of the “party of corruption” hanging over their heads.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: You’re making it waaay too easy.
McCain’s friends don’t stomp on American flags
Nope, they just wanna cut out some of the stars.
Report comment to moderator
Good points Anlir and HRW-
I suspect what we are seeing is a last ditch effort to keep the McCain/Bush base together. Most people see it for what it is. A desperate last gasp of a dying campaign.
Report comment to moderator
OK, to all the rebels. I know that with every message you post you keep American from being overrun with “fundamentalist fanatics.”
Not to mention that you are ensuring that Obama will be elected. There are hordes of undecided secret ambivalent evangelical Christian “sort of about to go gay” readers who maintain the strength to be ambivs by reading your underground messages.
Nevertheless, as a bad influence, I suggest you try not posting for one day, just to see if America collapses into rightwing religious right right right right [I am hitting tape recorder so it stops repeating itself] r i g h t [stop it stop it!] tyranny, not to mention economic collapse.
Should I invite Nick Peters to participate in the [draws deep breath] the one day boycott? Is he a loyalist or a rebel? He supports the Arabs in the Middle East. He wants to keep women in their place. He is conservative. Will the real Nick stand up? Will NJL stand up for Nick?
He is white; the rest of the rebels are clearly non-white. But how do we know Nick Peters is really white? How do we know what color anybody is on the Internet? At night all cats are gray; on my LCD monitor all pixels are fuzzy.
When my wife and I had our Honeymoon in Carmel, California lo those 42 years ago, we were much impressed with the white sand of Monterey, California. I hope Nick lives there so he can guard the sand against black sand invading from Wainapanapa, Hawaii. Not to mention if Nick is ever invaded by a sense of humor (hint: not likely), who will guard him?
Anyway: rebels–don’t show the flag tomorrow. Pay attention to your homosexual lover! Play with your atheist, godless children.
Let the Christians post peaceful messages to each other, playing on the beach (of whatever color sand they prefer), while we watch enviously as the pray for Palin!
Report comment to moderator
KEVINB: If you really think this should be an issue in the 2008 election, please explain why, considering the facts of the case.
McCain behaved unethically, but the Senate at that time did not have any specific rule that governed the propriety of members intervening with federal regulators. For comperable acts today, McCain would be reprimanded. McCain knew that the S&L had made vast direct investments in real estate in violation of law, and that those investments jeopardized depositors, but Keating was too important a friend and patron. McCain’s participation at improper meetings without staff members was evidence of a guilty mind, besides colossally bad judgment.
There is no question that our present credit crisis is a result of inadequate regulation and oversight, yet McCain’s history taught him nothing. He’s given his ear to people like former Sen. Phil Gramm, the junkyard dog of trash economics.
Report comment to moderator
Seriously Serious George, you should not so easily dismiss the Ayers/Obama link. Read the link in #54, Michelle invited both to speak together. They were working on the subject of teen murderers and overturning legislation that tried them as adults. This shows a link of mutual thinking and agreement on policies. Obama and Ayers are like minded far left liberals. Add in their agreement on housing issues and many others.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ayers-dohrn-obama-tie-shouldnt-be-dismissed/
There’s more there than BO wants to let on. From the link;
“Obama campaign manager David Axelrod and other campaign surrogates are now furtively trying to claim today that Obama “didn’t know the history” of Ayers and Dohrn as the leaders of America’s most infamous left-wing terrorist group when Obama met at their home for a political “coming out” in 1995, but their attempt to make pretend that Barack Obama didn’t know of their terrorist past is laughable.
By 1995, Barack Obama had known Bill Ayers at least eight years since their shared involvement in the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, if not longer. Bernardine Dohrn, once labeled “the most dangerous woman in America” by none other than J. Edgar Hoover, was also well known as the inspiration for the 1988 movie Running on Empty. Subtle terrorists they were not.
As noted in the New York Times, Obama has tried to minimize his relationship with Ayers, dismissing him as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
Axelrod also tried to excuse the extent of Obama’s involvement with Ayers, stating, “Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”
It’s an obvious fiction pitched by Axelrod, since the Obama children are presently in elementary school, while Ayers’ children are all grown adults, but the Ayers-Obama family connection doesn’t stop at the imaginary connections between the children.”
Obama may not approve of Ayers former methods, by he definetely approves of his goals and policy ideas. (Community Organizing) I for one find it shocking that this man is allowed a say in govt after being a terrorist. And even worse, the education of young people. That’s letting the lunatics run the asylum.
Report comment to moderator
Random: But…but… after 8 years, it’s fun to be the cat for just a few days. Those little furry guys turn such cute somersaults.
Report comment to moderator
Obama caught lying again? You be the judge.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_lies_about_keating_attacks_only_being_a_response_to_mccain/
Said Obama: “One of the things we’ve done during this campaign: we don’t throw the first punch, but we’ll throw the last. Because if the American people don’t get the information that is relevant about these candidates and instead in the last four weeks all they are hearing about are smears and Swift Boat tactics that can have an impact on the election. We have seen it before, and this election is too important to be sitting on the sidelines. If Senator McCain wants to focus on the issues then that is what we focus on. But if Senator McCain wants to have a character debate that is one that we’re willing to have.”
“Obama doesn’t throw the first punch, eh? Well here’s the thing: Obama’s campaign registered the domain for their Keating scandal website several days before Palin started talking about Ayers:”
Here’s a free tip for BO. If you are so easily caught lying, it’s probably best to not have the character debate. You do know what lying says about your character right? Amatuer.
Report comment to moderator
That’s letting the lunatics run the asylum.
Well, one thing’s for sure – it couldn’t be any worse than letting the inmates run the prison, which is what we’ve had going on in the White House for the last 8 years.
“McCain/Palin: Because America hasn’t suffered enough yet!”
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 141
They can’t help themselves, Alinsky, Ayers and the Gamiliel Foundation are enought to give the SDD’s (Socialist DEPENDENT Democrat’s) hysterical blackouts. What else could we expect?
Report comment to moderator
I see Lumpy is back to spamming, and Anlir is back to his/her attacks. Sigh . . .
Report comment to moderator
I saw tonight that PC Magazine is reporting more spam is directed at Palin than Biden, and much more is directed at McCain than Obama. Again I sigh . . .
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
What can we expect, and then there’s the name changes as though we would ‘never know’ LOL –
Palin is too smart, too tough for these old cranks, they don’t know what to do with this lady except to complain about her shoes, her ability to hunt, or her kids – its one of the weakest attempts of blubber slander I’ve ever read.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: I note that none of our resident leftys will even touch the reading list of the Gamiliel Foundation. Afraid of Alinsky, are we? Afraid of Kurtz’ article?
There’s no reason to be afraid of things so utterly irrelevant to Obama’s candidacy.
You guys are really flailing away in desperation here.
Report comment to moderator
I sure miss the dog whistle.
E.g. AJ’s nefarious “community organizing” or NJL’s Saul Alinsky.
My honest reaction is along the lines of, “and? . . .” I really don’t get it.
Fwiw, the proof of community organizing can be found on the front page of Monday’s Washington Post and the record of registered voters. The Republicans are simply getting out hustled.
And as to Mr. Ayers. They shook hands. He gave some money. Where’s the influence? Where do you see the influence showing up in Sen. Obama’s actual stands? You don’t need to dig 40 years to find the sources of his stands.
Report comment to moderator
Is taking the gloves off the Christian approach?
I’m not sure. Maybe you should ask Christ Himself, whom I remember turning over the moneychangs’s tables in the Temple?
Report comment to moderator
One other item about the Ayers aspect.
For a Christian, this fascination with the sins of youth seems rather odd. Embedded in Christian testimony is the notion of change, yes by the Spirit, but more generally, that we know all too many narratives of lives that begin in one place and settle in another.
We have names.
Franky Schaeffer
Franklin Graham
Hellions in their 20s, respected in their 40s. And if we’re honest, many of us would make the same statements about ourselves,how for whatever reason we settled down and found a life.
Thus, the idea that our convictions and understanding remain frozen at the age of 25 — well, that just doesn’t match our own experience. And with respect to Mr. Ayers, why should we expect him to be the same person in 1995, identical in conviction to the person he was in 1975? Why should we expect him to be the exception to what our lived experience tells us is manifestly not true?
Report comment to moderator
Harris at #160 and 162: You make good points stated eloquently, but the answer to your question is simple: It is politically expedient.
That is really all it is. The conservative Republicans believe that their best remaining hope of winning this election is to make people believe that Obama hates America and endorses violence as a means of forcing social change. In order to do this, they are willing to grasp at the thinnest of reeds and to attack his moral character based on nothing more than innuendo and insinuation.
That they engage in this under the banner of Christianity is, I think, a slander on Christ. Even I, speaking not as a Christian, have too much respect for Jesus to think it would be good to lie in his name. But apparently some, who no doubt think they are doing the right thing, feel differently.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast is once again making stuff up to support his nonsense, and he has it exactly backwards to reality. (no surprise)
“I saw tonight that PC Magazine is reporting more spam is directed at Palin than Biden, and much more is directed at McCain than Obama. Again I sigh . . .”
PC Magazine says this:
If only determining the winner of a debate was this easy.
In a study released by Secure Computing on Friday, the amount of spam citing Gov. Sarah Palin topped her opponent, Sen. Joe Biden, by a ratio of 5 to 4 during the month of September. But in a top-of-the-ticket comparison, spam using the name of Sen. Barack Obama easily topped the use of his opponent, Sen. John McCain, by 6 to 1.
What does this say? That spammers are continuing to use the most provocative names and subjects as possible, to lure users into opening the source email. A “surge” of Obama spam was apparently timed for around Sept. 3, about the time of the Republican National Convention.
And what do the spammers tie to the candidates’ names? In the case of Obama, “Though the spam message content itself is nonsensical, the basic themes of the Obama email content does tend to revolve around the shallow factors that are espoused in the mainstream media as central campaign issues: race, disputes with Clinton, messianic oratory, and FOX news smears,” Secure Computing wrote.
Report comment to moderator
Steve and others taking this seriously, what I see that is going to work against the McCain smear campaign is this: For the past year or more, the right wing has been trying to paint Senator Obama as a Muslim or terrorist sympathizer. It worked briefly, but people have largely been informed otherwise, and even the more ignorant people know it’s a false accusation. The new “paint Obama as a terrorist’s pal” meme sounds too much like the right wing disinformation that has already made the rounds and been debunked. People are going to ignore it, and instead paint McCain as desperate and dirty. Watch the polls. No way. No how. No McCain smears, dontcha know, also?
Report comment to moderator
Harris – 162
You are OFF BASE. Mentioning Ayers in the same breath with Schaeffer and Graham shows how ‘LITTLE YOU KNOW’- granted Schaeffer has gone another way, but certainly should never be compared to Ayers – as far as Franklin Graham you Harris, should be ashamed of yourself for even making such a ridiculous statement.
Frank Shaeffer and Franklin Graham didn’t try to BOMB anyone or anything. When you make the rash statements you made in post number 162 you have lost whatever credibility you had. Such a farce and sham you make of things you know nothing about.
Report comment to moderator
If there is one thing which stands out on this blog, it is the inept brainless comments that are posted no matter how little information the poster has, but more importantly NO PROOF, just words and mindless chatter.
Report comment to moderator
Case in point are posts # 166 and 167
Report comment to moderator
I just thought I’d pop in to point out that Obama had his BEST day of polling today since the campaign began. Polls today had him up 13 in New Hampshire, 12 in Virginia, 7 in Florida, 6 in North Carolina, and 3 in Missouri.
Now it’s possible that 5 separate outlier polls where released on the same day. But it’s also more plausible that Obama continues to dominate this race!
Report comment to moderator
Sins of youth? This was the guy’s job. And more to the point, following a Marxist-Socialist, working for one and promoting these ideas aren’t “sins” at all. If you think they are, you don’t understand what sin is. Socialism is a viewpoint, and it’s Obama’s. The US should not follow the path of the Europe which is literally dying.
Report comment to moderator
And now, Tony Rezko is ready to talk to the Feds for a lighter sentence. Interesting…..
Report comment to moderator
Sorry I’m late to the party, people.
But has anybody here pointed out the serious Ninth Commandment ramifications to Caribou Barbie’s allegation?
“Pal around”? Present tense?
“Terrorists”? Plural?
I’m no fan of Barack Obama. But the man is a sitting US Senator. And if there is any evidence whatsoever that Sen. Obama is presently associating with people who targeted America, then bring formal charges and investigate them. And if they’re found to be true, the man has no business whatsoever in the Senate — bounce his fanny out.
As you and I know, Obama is guilty of no such thing. But Sarah Palin — candidate for Vice President and born-again Christian — appears to have no qualms about bearing false witness against her political opponent.
Because after all, politics is politics.
Report comment to moderator
Now, as re. Sarah and Todd’s past ideas re. secession of Alaska from the Union … I love and wholeheartedly support the principle of secession. I expect to hear more talk about it in the coming months and years, and I hope it gains some traction.
But that’s not enough for me to vote for Juan McSame-Caribou Barbie.
Report comment to moderator
Obama doesn’t even understand why NORMAL people would be offended by Wright and Ayers. If he did, he would have jettisoned them long ago. It’s not even on his radar — but racist liberation theology and unrepentent anti-Americanism is okay with him — and evidently with those who support him. Certainly here.
There are legal ways to secede. There was an island up there in Maine that seceded from Portland last year.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (91): When Christ calls you to account for bearing this false witness, what will you say?
VICTORIA (95): When did you start to worry about what Christ says? When did you become accountable to Christ? Last but not least, when did you become accountable for bearing false witness regarding what the Bible says?
FRANK: With all due respect sister, you’re ducking the issue.
Whether or not an unbeliever (or somebody you think is an unbeliever) obeys God has no bearing whatsoever on our obligation to obey Him.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Frank, but have you visited the Volokh and read their threads on what Obama plans are for the Second Amendment? McCain doesn’t have those plans. I didn’t think so, but maybe you want some SCOTUS justices ruling from the bench that you have no gun rights.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Yeah, Jesus was all about the deadly firepower.
Anyway, here are some dispatches from Palin country:
Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”
[...]
The reception had been better in Clearwater, where Palin, speaking to a sea of “Palin Power” and “Sarahcuda” T-shirts, tried to link Obama to the 1960s Weather Underground. “One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers,” she said. (”Boooo!” said the crowd.) “And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’ ” she continued. (”Boooo!” the crowd repeated.)
“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.
Palin also told those gathered that Obama doesn’t like American soldiers. “He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, ‘air-raiding villages and killing civilians,’ ” she said, drawing boos from a crowd that had not been told Obama was actually appealing for more troops in Afghanistan.
Racism, bloodlust and lies. Sarah dispenses it and the GMCs here cheer it.
Jesus must be so proud.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is the Man Who Never Was – he has been shielded from scrutiny by the prostitutes in the media who are determined to elect him at any cost and destroy any Americans who dare dissent.
Here is EXACTLY who Obama is:
He is a man:
Who is an admitted Marxist-Leninist,
Who hates America and has nothing but contempt for average Americans by his own statements,
Who is a close friend and political associate of cop killers and murderers and terrorists,
Who is a long-term close disciple of a rabid hate-monger who calls for race and class warfare and screams supplications for God to damn America,
Who is the political spawn of the corrupt Chicago mob,
Who is actively seeking to destroy the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (which we still enjoy for a short time due to so much blood shed over so many generations),
Who is a craven creature of the Leftwing-Media machine that squats over the Republic and feeds on her like a giant cancerous tumor,
And who is finally – and significantly – the most rabid and fanatic supporter (in the entire cesspool of Washington DC) of the ongoing genocide of abortion.
We’ve come a long way from George Washington, baby.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (177): Yeah, Jesus was all about the deadly firepower.
FRANK: He certainly wasn’t opposed outright to people possessing the means to defend themselves, their households and their communities against aggression, if that’s what you’re implying.
Steveg whines about his fellow citizens daring to shine the light on Obama – and then (yawn) attacks their Christianity for doing so.
Which (the charitable interpretation) shows he knows NOTHING about either the operation of a Republic OR true Christianity. Anyone here surprised?
This is the typical slave-to-the-machine intimidation tactics and the usual rabid desire of a leftist to suppress truth.
This is a Republic – at least, for a little while.
To seek and proclaim the truth is the responsibility of citizens who still are not enslaved, especially when the press has been subverted by enemies of the Republic and has prostituted itself to a single monolithic anti-American ideology.
And – newsflash – nothing about Christianity requires the denial of truth, especially since we, as citizens, are responsible for the government.
Or that was still true at my last reading of the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Drill’s post reminds me of the line, “who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?” The problem with such political hyperbole is that it is easily undercut by the behavior of the person in question. There is little in Obama’s demeanor that lends credence to words like “rabid” or “nothing but..” The discrepancy between assertion and behavior only undercuts the real points you wish to make.
Back to Victoria. Of course, I understand the difference between a person like Ayers and Franky Schaeffer. But to stop there is to strain at the gnat. The larger point was that individuals change over time, that convictions that motivate us in one period may not be the same in another time. The Ayers’ case basically depends on the idea that he is the same person in conviction now as then, when by his own words he is not. Again, this may be another instance of the partisan, “who you going to believe? Me….”
Report comment to moderator
Sure Drill. Obama has served on boards with Ayers. No argument there. Prove the connection extends to shared affinities and endorsement of violence. That’s your claim. Let’s see your evidence. So far, everyone who has tried to make that case has been unable to show any evidence of it. Can you?
If you can’t, then all you have is an association, which proves absolutely nothing that isn’t already out in the open.
Report comment to moderator
You can insult me and trot out your cliched claims of “Marxist” “Leninist” “socialist” etc. etc. all you want. It’s all you have. You have no actual evidence of what you’re trying to make people believe.
Flail away.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER (176): Okay, Frank, but have you visited the Volokh and read their threads on what Obama plans are for the Second Amendment? McCain doesn’t have those plans.
FRANK: Sorry, sister, but that is just plain wrong.
Juan McSame wants to close (what he calls) the “gun show loop-hole.” IOW, when private citizen Tom takes his rifle to a gun show in hopes of selling it, and he meets private citizen Dick, and they agree on a selling price, Juan McSame wants them to have to fill out the same federal paperwork they would have to fill out if Tom was the owner of a gun shop instead of just a private citizen.
And of course, if such a law were passed re. gun shows, it would have to be applied to other private transactions as well, such as private party gun sales through the classified ads.
But consider what Juan McSame thinks about my private property and free speech rights: “McCain-Feingold.” ‘Nuff said?
Quit fooling yourself, NJL. McSame is just as bad as Nobama. Juan McSame is a statist — just like Barack Obama, Juan McSame believes first and foremost in the power of the State. Whichever of these two clowns wins, we’re still screwed.
I’d rather cast my “wasted” (but utterly principled) vote for Chuck Baldwin than for either of these two Big Gummint phonies.
(BTW, not that it matters to 99% of the people here, be they right or left — but Baldwin has been endorsed by Rep. Ron Paul .)
Report comment to moderator
Wow. So you really think someone should be able to buy a deadly weapon with no background checking at all? Any criminal, terrorist or thug should be able to walk into a gun show and buy guns, no questions asked?
Has the whole world gone insane while I wasn’t paying attention?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: See my post 24 for the link. This relationship, of course, is being completely covered up by the prostituted media – I laughed yesterday at the hijinks in the media regarding this topic, when Palin made an issue out of it. And you full well know and support this coverup.
Regarding Marxism: Obama admits himself in his memoirs of his attraction to Marxist-Leninist thought and proponents. That is also tied up with his relationship, such as it was, with his Marxist-Leninist father. Curiously (to my knowledge), he never disavows it, nor does he contrast it negatively with the Jeffersonian concept of a Republic of free peoples, who he is on record as detesting and having contempt for.
But why go over ground that has been quite adequately demonstrated a thousand times before? – you are a blind partisan supporter of Obama and have no interest in the truth about him at all.
The problem is that this historical information regarding the real Obama is NOT being brought forward into the light for the American people in general to scrutinize and evaluate.
I have no idea of whether you are a Marxist Leninist – I actually doubt it. I suspect like most leftists in the US today you have just been Oprahized to a greater or lesser degree, and are functionally unable to think for yourself on most such things, but must be told how to think and respond or you are at sea.
A good Marxist-Leninist actually thinks for themselves, as malovolent as their thoughts might be.
That assessment above, however, is pretty much indicative of the average Leftist today, so,
in the absence of more information, that is what I must assume.
Report comment to moderator
Re. Caribou Barbie’s accusation that Nobama “pals around with terrorists”:
Suppose for a moment that Nobama grows a pair and, at tonight’s debate, he asks Juan McSame the following:
“Senator, your running mate recently accused me of ‘palling around with terrorists.’ Do you agree with her assertion?”
So the Q. I have for the McSame supporters is this: If Nobama asks McSame that question, how should he answer it?
Report comment to moderator
Drill: Even the article you linked to — in a right-wing newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife — says absolutely nothing that isn’t already widely known and openly acknowledged. Obama and Ayers served on a board together in the 90s. Granted. True. So what?
It also repeats the Ayers quote from the 2001 NYT article, which Ayers says completely distorted his current views. (See the link in my post #68.
So — just as I said — what you can prove is something nobody’s tried to deny. What you want people to believe, that Obama today shares the radicalism and violence of Ayers from more than 30 years ago, you can’t prove or even support.
But it won’t stop you from trying, no matter how much you must lie (in Jesus’ name!) to do so.
You really should be ashamed, but I doubt you are capable of it.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
“Who is an admitted Marxist-Leninist,”
You are a liar. Obama’s economic philosophies are informed by his tenure at the Chicago School of Law, a free market bastion. He believes in government regulated market correction. That’s pretty far away from Lenin, but I don’t expect you to understand why or how because I also think you are ignorant.
“Who hates America and has nothing but contempt for average Americans by his own statements,”
You are a liar. Obama’s most often repeated line (i.e. “his own statements”) is that only in America is his story of growing up interracial in a single parents home to going to Harvard even possible. If you think Obama hates America you are informing your opinions with your own racism not Obama’s own statements.
“Who is a close friend and political associate of cop killers and murderers and terrorists,”
You’re a liar. Bill Ayers and Obama served on a board of an anti-poverty foundation that met 12 times over two years. Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama at his house. You have no basis for you claim that they are “close personal friends.” And even if you did, you are lying when you call Bill Ayers a cop-killer. You’re ignorance of history is showing as you are appropriating actions taken by members of the Black Liberation Army (which happened a full year after Ayers turned himself in) to Bill Ayers because he had a personal friendship with Gilbert and Boudin. Liar!
“Who is a long-term close disciple of a rabid hate-monger who calls for race and class warfare and screams supplications for God to damn America,”
You’re a liar! Obama publicly denounced Wright after Wirght would not accept the criticism Obama made of him. We acan grant that they had a long standing relationship, but that does not mean that you are not lying when you suggest that Obama is a disciple to Wright’s more extreme views. This comment you’re making is a lie.
“Who is the political spawn of the corrupt Chicago mob,”
Yeah, you’re a liar!
“Who is actively seeking to destroy the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.”
You’re still a liar. Even if we grant that Obama has stricter believes about gun control than you would like, this is still a lie. The net affect of an Obama presidency would be, as explained, a return to civil rights that have been taken away or regarded as optional under the Bush administration including to due process and privacy. You may think that the removal of those rights is sometimes warranted by pressing security issues, but that does not mean that you are not lying when you characterize Obama’s agenda as “rights removal.”
“Who is a craven creature of the Leftwing-Media machine that squats over the Republic and feeds on her like a giant cancerous tumor,
I’m pretty sure you’re a liar, but I’ll be honest. I’m basing that claim on empirical observation, because this comment doesn’t make sense!
“And who is finally – and significantly – the most rabid and fanatic supporter (in the entire cesspool of Washington DC) of the ongoing genocide of abortion.”
Oh look, he can tell the truth. But we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point, both on our different opinions of a woman’s access to civil liberty and her right to make her own medical decisions and on your characterization of abortion as a “genocide”! Thankfully international law and convention (not to mention rational thinking) is against you there.
Moment of forthright opinion making aside, your post is a festering boil of outright lies and mischaracterizations. You should be ashamed of yourself, because you have no decency. You have failed your ethical obligations a rhetor and sacrificed your expectation to be treated seriously.
Report comment to moderator
What Luke said.
Report comment to moderator
“you are a blind partisan supporter of Obama and have no interest in the truth about him at all.”
OMG! That one made me laugh! No joke.
Report comment to moderator
So, I did a little googling on Ayers and it led me to the question of which is worse: taking money from Ayers as Obama did or pardoning convicted terrorists like Susan Rosenberg as Clinton did on his last day in office.
I remember Susan’s trial, along with Timothy Blunk, held down the hall from chambers. I remember all the FBI, the guns on the roof tops and the extra security — and I was stunned to read that Clinton let her go. Perhaps the problem here is that the kids on this board have no memory of the destruction these sorts of people did. It’s bygones with them. These people have become heroes to our lefty friends here — just as they became heroes to Barack Obama. They don’t repent the havoc, the destruction they caused, and the leftys here are proud of that, just as they are proud of Obama for following in their footsteps. I’ll bet you right now that Obama, if he becomes president, will pardon Joanne Chesimard, too. Won’t go over well in Jersey, but he’d do it.
Report comment to moderator
When a kid like Luke says of someone like Drill “because I also think you are ignorant,” he says more about himself than Drill. Life will teach you a few things, little man, and I do mean little.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (185): Wow. So you really think someone should be able to buy a deadly weapon with no background checking at all? Any criminal, terrorist or thug should be able to walk into a gun show and buy guns, no questions asked?
FRANK: There are reasonable ways to restrict (somewhat*) the sale of firearms to prohibited possessors**.
Staffing an centralized government bureaucracy to perform a background check for each and every gun purchase everywhere in the US every day — even on a purchaser who was just checked for a gun purchase the day before — is not the way.
Having the federally-licensed dealer check the name and ID of the purchaser — locally — against an encoded federal database of prohibited possessors he has in his store could be one way.
Then, once such a reasonable system is put in place, requiring private-party buyers/sellers to process their transactions through their local federally-licensed gun dealer might be a reasonable option.
___________
*I say “somewhat,” because black markets cannot be totally eliminated.
**When the government passes laws declaring some misdemeanor offenders to be “prohibited possessors,” that is another fundamental problem that needs to be corrected.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER (192): … just as they became heroes to Barack Obama.
FRANK: I actually agree with most of what you wrote in that post. But I don’t think claiming that William Ayers is a hero to Barack Obama — at least for the radical causes and actions Ayares participated in — can withstand scrutiny.
Can you cite sources indicating that Obama does consider Ayers a “hero” for his 60s radicalism?
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Indeed, you used the word “heroes.” So I rephrase my Q:
Can you cite sources indicating that Obama considers any 60s radical a “hero” for his/her 60s radicalism?
Report comment to moderator
#162 For a Christian, this fascination with the sins of youth seems rather odd.
Yes, but NJL and Victoria (like Sarah Palin) are just poser Christians. Their real religion is the GOP. Were they transported to Jesus’ time, they’d be yelling, “Crucify him. Crucify him.”
Report comment to moderator
Luke: A few things:
First, it is against the policy of WMB to call a fellow poster a liar. You are presumably not aware of that policy? I thought of ratting you out (which you richly deserve) but I am not in the habit of snitching, even on a moronic establishment ingrate who has repeatedly shown himself unable to use his brain, provided he actually has one (no evidence there).
Second, I would agree with you that someone is lying. Since every single point I raised is fully documented and has been demonstrated hundreds of times via links and analysis on this blog and elsewhere, I am simply not interested in the idiotic negative reactions of a witless fool to various points of well-documented truth.
Third, since you fail to make a single meaningful response and in fact essentially admit to every point I raise with one exception – and which response is woefully incorrect as well (after you used for the nth time the forbidden L word, of course), I will simply reiterate the following facts regarding the creature of the Left, Barack Hussein Obama:
He is a man:
Who is an admitted Marxist-Leninist (out of his own memoirs),
Who hates America and has nothing but contempt for average Americans by his own statements (from his own lips),
Who is a close friend and political associate of cop killers and murderers and terrorists (from his known history – see Bill Ayers statements in 2001 regarding his activity),
Who is a long-term close disciple of a rabid hate-monger who calls for race and class warfare and screams supplications for God to damn America (from his known history),
Who is the political spawn of the corrupt Chicago mob (from his known history),
Who is actively seeking to destroy the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (from his documented attacks on the Bill of Rights, including on the 1st and 2nd amendment and also on the bedrock of a free society, the secret ballot)
Who is a craven creature of the Leftwing-Media machine that squats over the Republic and feeds on her like a giant cancerous tumor (and we know what kind of cell YOU aspire to be, don’t we?),
And who is finally – and significantly – the most rabid and fanatic supporter (in the entire cesspool of Washington DC) of the ongoing genocide of abortion. (You admire the murder of children – enough said).
There are, of course, plenty of more disturbing things about Obama, as pointed out in many, many posts on these threads and elsewhere.
But Drill grows tired of repeating the obvious. Especially to the functionally brain-dead.
Report comment to moderator
. . . a festering boil of outright lies and mischaracterizations . . .
. . . and an impasse of stupidity as well. Drill’s line of attack can only strengthen Obama’s claim to a progressive agenda when he’s elected. Obama can appear before the nation saying, “I am humbled that, despite my flaws, and despite McCain’s manifest personal virtues, the voters chose a new vision for their future. Let us press on toward the mark, etc.”
Instead of calling Obama “an admitted Marxist,” Drill would be smarter to call him a “moderate who promises a bi-partisan, moderate future that respects traditional American values.”
Report comment to moderator
Drill has lost it …
Report comment to moderator
Oh, really, Scroop Moth:
Press on toward the mark? Press on to maybe two million child killings a year instead of what we have now? Maybe three million? The sky is the limit! Kill them all! Butcher and saw, hack and stab!
New vision? What new vision? Hugo Chavez has been peddling this vision for decades.
His flaws? Many, see above for a partial list.
Let us? Us who? This man and his history (Rev. Wright, Ayers, etc.) has already divided and embittered this nation beyond repair.
A moderate? The most rabid left-wing Senator by all ratings in the US Senate.
Bi-Partisan? Voted the Marxist-Leninist Democrat line 98% of the time.
Respects traditional American values? Remember the unscripted contemptous line ‘clinging to their guns and religion out of bitterness’ and ‘proud of America for the first time in my life’ and many others as well?
Future? Not sure what future a Republic has that elects (however fraudulently) an individual who is the antithesis of everything that the Republic stands for.
Yeah. I would agree there is an impasse of stupidity, okay. You’re just another brick in that wall.
Report comment to moderator
Spioza: That assumes Drill ever had it.
Here’s the real story on Obama and Ayers.
Among the truths that Drill, NJLawyer and Victoria will ignore:
Regardless of his background, it was never a problem for anyone — including Republicans and Chicago’s most powerful business leaders — to work with Ayers on Chicago’s public schools. In fact, Ayers is widely respected in the field of urban education.
“It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier,” said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. “It’s ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It’s nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It’s so silly.”
Nelson says her fellow Republicans “might snort when they hear the name Bill Ayers, because they know he comes from a wealthy family, they know he became a radical activist early in his life … but beyond just snorting, I don’t think anyone gives it another thought.”
“I don’t remember ever hearing anyone raise concerns or questions or concerns about [Ayers'] background,” says Anne Hallett, who has worked closely with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge grant and with Obama on education and other community and legislative matters. “And that included everybody I was engaged with,” including prominent Republicans, and corporate and civic leaders in Chicago, Hallett adds.
Hallett calls this attack on Obama’s association with Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge by further association, “a smear campaign. It’s a political diatribe that has no basis in fact. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an extremely positive initiative. It was well-vetted, thorough, and the fact that it is now is being used for political purposes is, in my opinion, outrageous.”
Report comment to moderator
Drill: Press on toward the mark? Press on to maybe two million child killings a year instead of what we have now? Maybe three million? The sky is the limit! Kill them all! Butcher and saw, hack and stab!
And there’s the real truth, eh? You are so unhinged over Obama’s pro-choice position that you will stoop to any low, spread any lie, do anything you think will help keep him out of office, no matter how sleazy, dishonest and dishonorable you have to be to do it.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: You are right that that is the WORST thing about Obama – and you, by extension.
That issue is, in itself, a bright defining line – because a person who purposely and deliberately embraces that genocide has shown that they have forfeited their humanity. And then the rest of their politics, whatever it might be, is absolutely rotten to the core.
Trust a candidate who supports the butchering of children to do the best thing for the elderly? Right.
Trust a candidate who supports the butchering of children to appoint fair-minded justices? Right.
Trust a candidate who supports the butchering of children to reform health care? Right.
Trust a candidate who supports the butchering of children to command the US military? Right.
Trust a candidate who supports the butchering of children to set policy on education of children? Right.
But, as you well know, not a single OTHER charge I have leveled against Obama is without documented foundation – and your rank hypocrisy about that truly stinks.
Because, if McCain (for instance) had been associated in the same way with a radical terrorist (like McVeigh or Nichols) as Obama was with Ayers, and if McCain had sat for twenty years listening to the hatred pouring from a bigot (like Phelps), you AND I both would be absolutely against him being dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.
But you don’t have the integrity or the decency to even admit your own hypocrisy here.
But then, given your stand on abortion, I am not surprised. Because, as I said, that is the brightest and most defining line of all.
Report comment to moderator
#204 – well why didn’t you just say so, instead of inventing all those other pseudo-objections.
NJL, Victoria, and Drill have in common that they’re one-issue voters who are not above misrepresenting fact in order to get their way. And isn’t this just the essence of the GOP base?
And BTW, Drill – Fetuses are not children, … yet.
Report comment to moderator
The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
48,589,993
FOURTY EGIHT MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED NINETY THREE little souls and lives, lost to the knife of abortion in the United States of America
Total Abortions since 1973
These figures represent 1/6th of our population in the United States of America – such a SINFUL practice, and its legal – a crime against an infant as death, for doing nothing other then nesting in its mother’s womb, and then selfishly killed.
SHAME
Report comment to moderator
Hey Victoria – I’m just curious – what’s the reference for your figures? And may I remind you that, although I respect your sensibilities in the matter, a fetus is not an infant.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: I am no more interested or impressed in your ‘justification’ why killing children is rendered okay by the evil expedient of labeling them ‘non-children’ then I would have been interested in the the ‘justification’ cribbed together by some drab third-rate Nazi party functionary sitting in a dank stinking office in the Reich as to how it was okay to exterminate Jews by the simple expedient of labeling them ‘not people’ or ’subhuman’.
Report comment to moderator
Obama wants to continue this wicked practice.
ok – I think I found it – “National Right to Life” ???
I wish they could break these figures down according to trimester.
Report comment to moderator
#208 – whatever – fetuses are still not children … yet.
Report comment to moderator
#208 – I would respect your position more if you wouldn’t try to exaggerate it by mis-labeling.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I say HEAR, HEAR to your remarks my friend!
Report comment to moderator
#208 I think it is still possible to argue against abortion without blurring the distinction between the categories “fetus” and “child”. But because it doesn’t serve your rhetorical purpose, you basically misuse the words and let that substitute for an actual reasonable argument.
In your own words, you have lost all integrity.
Report comment to moderator
Spin,
No matter how you try, you will never be able to make a child growing in the WOMB a none person. It’s the hope of all pro-abortion believers to RELIEVE their conscience by ‘pretending’ that little child isn’t a child.
Report comment to moderator
from http://www.dictionary.com
Child:
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
Fetus:
–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
It is an accurate reflection of your position to say that you hold a fetus in as high regard as a child. But that still doesn’t make a fetus equivalent to a child anywhere in the English language.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. I actually am undecided on issues of late-term abortions.
Report comment to moderator
We as little man have no idea how the bones grow in the womb, we know so little, yet the world kills the unborn because they don’t want them. Man defies God, mocks His little ones in the womb by killing them. One day every single knee will bow to HIM.
The secret place within the womb where every child is formed by God and grows. Man can’t create a child, but he sure knows how to kill one, and kill he does, without regret, or remorse for his evil deeds.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Victoria.
Spinoza says: “Fetuses are not children, … yet.”
And echoes from the past and from the future:
“The elderly are not people . . . anymore.”
“The Jews are not human . . . ever.”
“The sick and the weak are not human . . . eliminate them.”
“The dissenter is not a person . . . terminate her.”
The possibilities are endless and quite rich, aren’t they, Spinoza?
Report comment to moderator
#218 Victoria that’s useless nonsense
Drill – you have given 4 examples that, according to any English dictionary, are contradictory. Not so with “Fetuses” which are not a special example of “children.”
Now I would be very willing to hear your argument against the abortion of fetuses. But by mis-labeling them as “children,” you make no argument other than a confusion of categories and simply jump in with the dismissibly confused like Victoria. By definition, fetuses are the young of mammals in the womb. By definition, “children” are the young of mammals after birth.
Now what is your argument that these should have equal legal status, other than an illogical emotional appeal that confuses separate and distinct categories? If you can’t recognize the definitional differences, then you can’t be relied on for an accurate assessment of their similarities.
Yes, the “possibilities are endless and quite rich” for false comparisons. So What?
Report comment to moderator
Anybody going to answer Spinoza’s question in #205? Since it turns out that the real object was the abortion issue all along, why go to such great lengths to gin up false accusations against him on an entirely different set of issues?
Or my earlier question of how you can justify bearing false witness?
Just own up to your real problem and don’t try to make things up.. is that too much to ask?
Report comment to moderator
“Life will teach you a few things, little man, and I do mean little.
Is NJL talking about my…you know?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: I answered in #204 the idiotic attack-question Spinoza asked in his #205; my response in #204 was in response to your previously identical idiotic attack-question.
Speaking truth is not bearing false witness. Obama is guilty on ALL charges, as I detailed them. The pro-death position is the most heinous.
Oh, that is right. To a leftist, speaking truth IS bearing false witness, I guess.
In the topsy-turvy, amoral, asymmetric looking-glass world of the Leftist, all is backwards and inside out. Excuse me for having to work at remembering that when dealing with you sometimes.
Anyway. Speaking of bearing false witness.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: But, as you well know, not a single OTHER charge I have leveled against Obama is without documented foundation
Well yes, they all are without that. All you can document about Ayers is that they worked together in the ’90s … look at #202 for why nobody but a few hysterics care about that.
What you’re hoping is that people will hear Obama and Ayers’ names together and — assuming they even know who Ayers is — will believe that Obama approved of Ayers’ violent past. It is a classic case of sleazy guilt by association and you know it.
Comparing Ayers to McVeigh and Nichols is just as sleazy. Those two murdered more than 100 people and never changed their views. Ayers murdered nobody, and later repudiated his past — highly distorted New York Times article nonwithstanding (#68) — and rose to level of respectability within academia and politics.
You’re a smear merchant, Drill. You’re trying to insinuate affinities that don’t exist to slander a man’s reputation, because you obviously think the ends justify your dishonest means. Don’t you DARE do that under the cover of your alleged Christianity and then call ME a hypocrite.
Report comment to moderator
To reiterate the key point from the article linked in #202:
“It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier,” said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. “It’s ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It’s nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It’s so silly.”
Report comment to moderator
Spin
You don’t believe the Word of God – its only reasonable that you would discount Scripture and believe the dictionary to be your guide, as to the life of an unborn child.
Report comment to moderator
223; In the topsy-turvy, amoral, asymmetric looking-glass world of the Leftist, all is backwards and inside out. Excuse me for having to work at remembering that when dealing with you sometimes.
All I’m asking is that you provide evidence to prove the accusations you’re making. Which you obviously are not able to do. Your accusation does not equal proof. Screaming at me isn’t going to help either.
Report comment to moderator
Spin you write: …. “#218 Victoria that’s useless nonsense”
The Word of God is nonsense/foolishness to those who have no use for the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
Six months ago, I was called a one-issue voter racist because I wouldn’t vote for Obama because of Jeremiah Wright, and now I’m a one-issue voter because of Ayers. That’s two reasons. It doesn’t matter that I have said I won’t vote for Obama because he has zero experience and hasn’t accomplished very much in any legislature. That’s three and four. His views on abortion make if five. Every time an issue comes up and anyone opposes their messiah, the leftys dismiss the criticism with this one-issue voter nonsense.
At the least they can’t add, because if they could, they would be able to add up all those one issue and they’d run out of fingers and toes. This man has accomplished nothing in public life, but they want him to be president. It’s incredible how naive they are.
Why should I vote for someone who has ties to a terrorist? Why would ANYONE vote for such a person? Ayers literally hosts a fundraiser in his home for Obama, but I’m to believe that Obama and Ayers have no relationship? Are the leftys so far gone that they can’t see why that is so wrong?
Report comment to moderator
No, Steveg: You ARE a rank hypocrite of the first order. A drooling supporter of, among other things, child murder. And yet you presume in a hideous parody of righteousness to pontificate to ME about morality.
Your ‘morality’ is the twisted ‘morality’ of the Goebbels, the Stalins, the Maos of the world. It stinks like the carrion it is to high heaven. I want no part of it. Count on that.
Obama has had contact with Ayers until shortly before his presidential run (see the links that I have provided and you have ignored, because the truth to you is like light is to a cockroach). Ayers is utterly unrepentant and wishes he had bombed more and killed more – by his own stinking words in 2001 – long past Obama’s close association with him and his butcher wife.
As you well know and yet you smear and slander on – how does smearing and slandering and hypocrisy come so easy to someone like you, Steveg?
I am genuinely curious.
Report comment to moderator
See? In one post, I linked to a letter from Ayers that explains how the NYT story misrepresents him. In another post, I linked to an article where other Chicago political leaders, including at least one Republican, explain why there’s nothing remarkable or sinister about Obama and Ayers serving on a board together in the ’90s.
Then in yet a third post I reminded you of those earlier posts by specific number.
You don’t want to hear direct, first-person truth. It mucks with what you want to believe.
Report comment to moderator
Furthermore Steveg, I never said that Obama shared Ayer’s particular fondness for blowing people up. What he did and still does share with Ayer are Ayer’s goals – which are Marxist-Leninist and the destruction of America – Obama would, of course, call it the remaking of America.
Ayer called the Weatherman Underground the ‘Red Army in America’ in 2001. He should know. Again, the last recorded/known communication between Obama and Ayer was in 2005, not in the 1990’s as you fabricate, and it was via email.
Ayer was and is EXACTLY the same type of person (just a different ideology) as McVeigh and Nichols -willing to kill for a twisted and evil cause. And Obama knew that – and knows it now. And you do too.
Report comment to moderator
Right. Ayers and Obama were both involved in the Annenberg Challenge in 1995. So were a couple of dozen other Chicago power players in politics, business and education. Are these all people who have “Marxist-Leninist” goals to destroy America?
You’ve moved from unhinged to beyond ludicrous. I think I’ll bow out of this and leave you to your madness.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Drill. If you can call Steve a “rank hypocrite,” I can certainly call you a liar, you lying liar!
But I’ll just issue a little challenge. If you can find the name of one person blown up by Bill Ayers, I’ll concede defeat!
Report comment to moderator
I guess it doesn’t bother our lefty friends that bombs destroyed property. Those don’t count. How ridiculous.
Why would anyone believe anything Ayers writes? He stomped on a flag. He’s dirt. But you guys can keep defending him….
Report comment to moderator
“NJLawyer: Yeah, Jesus was all about the deadly firepower.”
Jesus has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and I am tired of explaining to you that Christians will not be disuaded from participating in politics just because we annoy the likes of you, Stevie.
Just because I am a Christian doesn’t mean I have to willingly hand over my life to a Marxist who plans to follow his heroes’ teaching to destroy the country slowly from within the government. Only unAmerican idiots would agree to that.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Your attempts to appeal to the CCR’s on a moral basis are beyond useless. As I’ve said many, many times, the CCR’s have no moral compass anymore. So lying, slander, rumors and innuendo are part of their moral lives now. Their God is the GOP, and they will do anything and say anything for it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
It’s spelled S O C I A L I S M – that is the defense, hidden behind those who lead the pack!
Report comment to moderator
Inside Obama’s Acorn
By their fruits ye shall know them.
By Stanley Kurtz
What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.
Inside Obama’s Acorn
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: I guess it doesn’t bother our lefty friends that bombs destroyed property. Those don’t count.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say they didn’t count. But they count for a heck of a lot less than McVeigh and Nichols’ bomb did.
Don’t even think about trying to use your guilt-by-innuendo smear tactics on me. I’m here to defend myself, and will.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Just because I am a Christian doesn’t mean I have to willingly hand over my life to a Marxist who plans to follow his heroes’ teaching to destroy the country slowly from within the government. Only unAmerican idiots would
… would believe anything resembling that paranoid scenario is happening here.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, if you took the time to investigate what’s being talked abouthere — but as a “good” lefty you don’t — you’d know that Alinsky’s goal was to turn the US into a socialist state from within the government, slowly but surely.
That’s the truth. There’s nothing paranoid about my repeating it, but you are bereft of any conscience when you don’t investigate the candidate you are voting for and just swallow his swill until you’re drunk on it. Alinsky is one of Obama’s heroes, and he was Hillary’s, too. This is why we’ve never seen her senior thesis. She’s cut from the same cloth, just wasn’t as involved in that sort of “community organizing.”
But ignorance is bliss, so you must be very happy.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: “It’s spelled S O C I A L I S M – that is the defense, hidden behind those who lead the pack!”
Surely, you meant “this” pack. As in this pack on this blog. It’s incredible.
My comment about bombs and property was to Luke’s 230something, not to Steve, who accuses me of being paranoid. One can only conclude that he’s sensitive on the subject of defending a bomber. Most people wouldn’t, but “The Pack” would and have done all day here.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody is defending a bomber or the act of bombing. We are defending a political candidate who has never been a bomber but has had some interaction with a man who, 25 years before they met, had been guilty of it.
You keep conflating the two as if Ayers 1970 is Ayers 1995 is Obama 2008. Therein lies the lie.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Luke, Ayers directly killed three people. His own people at that – he was, on top of being a terrorist and a cop-killer, incompetent.
From the article that has been cited a number of times in previous posts (perhaps you skipped it because it has big words, i.e. words with more than three letters):
“Between 1969 and 1974, the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for some 20 bombings in the United States — at police stations, banks, jails, courthouses, the Capitol and the Pentagon. Ayers became a fugitive in 1970, reports Andy McCarthy at the National Review, after three of his cohorts were “accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers’ specifications — Ayers was a bomb designer — went off during construction.”
The explosive, a nail bomb, “had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey,” reports McCarthy. “Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, ‘tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.’”
So you were wrong, as you always are. Of course, do I expect you to admit it? Nope. That would require minimal integrity. Something you would be utterly unfamilar with.
However, if you wish to do the noble thing and admit your stupidity and malice, then by all means perform a penance – send money to a pro-life organization so that – just maybe – a child won’t be killed by your buddies and your handlers in the murder industry.
I’m curious – just how did you become such a witless slave of the machine, Luke?
I’m always interested in other people’s life stories, even depressing ones.
Report comment to moderator
John McCain is friends with G. Gordon Liddy, a man who actively participated in illegal activities to subvert the democratic process.
Liddy has openly fantasized about killing government agencies on at least two occasions, including this statement he made on his radio show: Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests. … They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.
Here’s betting the GMCs will not care about this association of McCain’s.
Liddy has acknowledged he was prepared to kill someone during the Watergate break in if necessary. He admitted to plotting to murder columnist Jack Anderson.
No matter. Good, moral Christians know that breaking into offices to steal information for election advantage is just fine. Planning to kill people whose influential opinions you don’t like? Sure. Talking with some glee about how best to kill federal agents carrying out law enforcement? No problem!
And someone, it should be noted, who has never once backed down from his radical and violent views.
But Obama’s association with a former radical — whose organization always gave their bombing targets plenty of warning specifically to avoid hurting anyone, and who Obama worked with decades after he gave up his radical ways and had become a well-respected member of society accepted by Republicans and Democrats alike — that, boys and girls, is proof enough that Obama wants to destroy America.
Report comment to moderator
For a new story on the even closer connections between Obama and Ayers – including the lie that Obama has told that he was ‘not aware of Ayer’s past’ see the following:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/index.html
The more this story is actually dug into, the more sordid it gets.
And now with the Chicago Mob guy who bought Obama’s mansion getting ready to sing – maybe we will have some news there – unless the prostitutes in the media can bury it like they have tried on everything in Obama’s past.
Report comment to moderator
Oh wow Drill! This article says that Obama and Ayers first met when they were both involved in the Annenberg Challenge project in 1995 … EXACTLY WHAT WE’VE ALL BEEN ACKNOWLEDGING THIS WHOLE THREAD!!!!
It also says:
A CNN review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved.
Ayers has strong defenders in Chicago — including Mayor Richard Daley, who called him “a valued member of the Chicago community.”
The city gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for his work on the Annenberg project.
Wow, what a shameful person he’s become, 30 years after his criminal past. I’m sure glad Christians believe in grace and forgiveness, else you might still be trying to judge him by what he did long ago.
And the article appears from its URL to have been published a year ago. So you’re less behind the times than usual.
Your posts that are intentionally funny are better, but I have to admit there is certain entertainment value in watching you desperately trying to invent a case where none exists.
Report comment to moderator
I correct myself on the publication date. I took to the 10/07 to mean October 2007, but of course it means Oct. 7, 2008. I retract the second-to-last paragraph of #248.
I stand by the rest of the post, though.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
You write: ….
Thanks NJL, I should have checked out the post – you are RIGHT!
Report comment to moderator
#226 Victoria I have no quarrel with the verses you cited, just your mangling interpretation of them and your non sequitur conclusion that they have anything to do with abortion. Your use of the Bible is atrocious even by the low standards of evangelical usage.
Report comment to moderator
235 – even Ayers disavows his youthful indiscretions, and so do we all. Your insistence that they’re now relevant is anti-Christian at best.
But then, we know y’all are just pretending to be enflamed about Ayers so as to join the GOP propaganda war to overturn Roe V. Wade.
Sad.
Drill, I infer that – since you returned to the Ayers pseudo-argument and never gave an anti-abortion argument other than to redefine fetuses as children – you have no good anti-abortion argument. I guess I’ll have to look elsewhere.
Report comment to moderator
#228 – The foolishness of Victoria is not the wisdom of God, no way no how.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
I can see where you might say this, since you have said on many an occasion that you were once a Born Again Christian – I DON’T BELIEVE YOU, its that clear. You don’t like the truth, and you don’t know how to deal with it – so of course you would find if offensive, and resort to ‘name calling’ – it’s your style!
Report comment to moderator
You have said you used to believe and now you don’t, so now you know the “wisdom of GOD” ? – you blew it Spin, big time!
If you don’t believe in Salvation, and you are no longer a Christian, what wisdom from God do you have stored away that we might trust or believe in?
Report comment to moderator
Uh oh Spinoza … you forgot the two rules of WorldMagBlog
1. Victoria is never wrong.
2. If Victoria is wrong, see Rule #1.
Report comment to moderator
Drill.
You are a liar quoting liars.
I don’t believe for a second that the “bomb” (p.s. they were building many in the Greenwich Village townhouse) was designed by Ayers, and you are going to have to find a more credible source than a lowlife like Andy McCarthy at a scum rag like the National Review.
Beside the fact that your lying yellow journalist is using a singular form of the noun counter factually, the intended target of Gold et al is speculative, so you’re boy is also lying there. It might very well by true, but the point is that it highlights the fact that Gold et al were working independently of Ayers, Dohrn, Rudd, and most of the others who would be in hiding for the next 10 years.
And given that you also choice to repeat the lie that Ayers is a cop killer, you have zero credibility.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and for the record…”reports Andy McCarthy” is a MASSIVE JOKE seeing as how the position of this great water boarding defender at the National Review is OP ED COLUMNIST! Can you see why I think you’re not too bright?
Report comment to moderator
Luke: You act as though you have a chicken’s brain in a human body. And you have no morality and no integrity at all. You lie and slander like other people breath. You are a typical product of the machine you worship – brainless, soulless, and rank. In other words, you are a good Vogon soldier, Luke.
You delight in defending the butchery of children and celebrating murdering cop-killing terrorists – you are useless to talk to – one may as well talk to a machine, or a recording, or a pile of offal.
When confronted with facts you spit and vomit gibbering hatred and moronic reflexive programmed denials. You are not even man enough to admit your error when it is rubbed in your face.
You are a dry well, an intellectual desolation, a spiritual desert, and it is profitless for anyone to have dealings of any kind with you.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: Nice going. You ignored the gist of the article which clearly stated (in detail) the strong ties of Obama to Ayers which are still being uncovered. And Obama’s deceptions thereof. Typical.
You want to support a cop-killing murdering terrorist who wants to see America destroyed? Go ahead. But don’t try to deceive others as to what you support; or pretend that Ayers is not exactly who Ayers says he was – and is. And why try to hide Obama’s strong connection to this lowlife? All the facts, all the records are available – and have been provided.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: I think it is understandable (although unfortunate) why you are unable to grasp or understand the ethical concept that killing children is wrong.
You have had that portion of your pysche dealing with morality/ethics burned away, seared away, presumably by the culture which you have subsided your humanity into – leaving behind, I suppose, only a sort of impervious scar tissue and a few wistful, tenuous emanations of morality (right and wrong) which will soon enough dissipate entirely.
So it is no surprise that I am having trouble communicating this seemingly basic concept that butchering children is wrong.
It is the ethical equivalent, I think, of trying to explain advanced Math to an unfortunate individual who has had a complete frontal lobotomy.
Anyway, knowing the problem unfortunately does not lessen the pity and the tragedy of it.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: The article revealed nothing that wasn’t already widely known. I don’t know what you think the big revelation is supposed to be. At worst, it shows that Obama initially tried to downplay the matter, which considering how people like you and NJL are now trying to convict him of Ayer’s long-past crimes, I can’t say I blame Obama for.
To repeat: By the mid 1990s, Ayers had become a well-respected member of Chicago academia and his radical days were long behind him. Obama was only one of dozens of politicians, academics and business leaders who had “connections” to Ayers in the same way Obama did. Unless you want to show that ALL those people are “Marxists” determined to “destroy America,” you have no case whatsoever.
And you keep repeating “cop-killer” about Ayers, which is not true. The fact that you keep repeating it even though you’ve been shown several times it’s not true takes away any remaining credibility you might have had. Ayers’ past crimes were bad, but they were not cop-killer bad.
Report comment to moderator
Now, since we’ve discovered that all this about Ayers is really displaced anger over abortion, it’s not surprising that you don’t feel any need to confine yourself to the truth. But you’re not helping your cause by repeatedly insisting on things that are proven false.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s Drill’s problem: when Americans elect that one to butcher their babies, collectivize their farmland, turn control of their factories and Wal-Marts over to committees of workers, and surrender Israel to the next holocaust, then Drill can say “I told you so” but not “he fooled you.”
Report comment to moderator
Core principle hookers around here falsely pretend that Obama is the only monster in America who wouldn’t resign from an establishment job because the organization hired someone who once participated in bad activities unconnected to the current activities of the organization.
Even if such persons are a bad influence, Obama can make a fair argument that withdrawing his own participation could have increased that influence in the organization he left behind.
Further, “responsibility” mongers are criticizing the wrong people. Christians should blame the people who appointed Ayers to the board, not the other prominent Republicans and Democrats who served on the board.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: They don’t care about Ayers. They care about any thin reed they can grasp at to try to make Obama look risky. Honesty no longer matters to the good, moral Christians.
Report comment to moderator
#261 I agree butchering children is wrong. duh.
What you have failed to understand is that fetuses are not children.
Report comment to moderator
Alaska ethics probe finds Palin abused her power
“Oh, Snap”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!