Forums | MacLife

McCain and Palin both appeared on Fox today, and both talked about Ayers.  McCain was on the ABC news tonight, doing the same thing.

The best part was when Gibson pointed out that Obama said he was surprised McCain wouldn't "say it to his face."  McCain's rage was palpable....

bratboy wrote:

McCain and Palin both appeared on Fox today, and both talked about Ayers.  McCain was on the ABC news tonight, doing the same thing.

The best part was when Gibson pointed out that Obama said he was surprised McCain wouldn't "say it to his face."  McCain's rage was palpable....

GIBSON: You didn't raise that, this argument, this argument, or line of argument, at the debate the other night. And I asked Sen. Obama about that yesterday. He said yeah, I'm surprised that John didn't say that to my face.
MCCAIN: Again, two things I've never been accused of lacking. And one is passion, and the other is courage. I mean, I can accept a lot of the other criticisms. It didn't come up in the flow of the conversation. But it did come up, and I pointed out that he asked for $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in his hometown of Chicago.

"Yeah I've been calling him a terrorist at rallies and I won't give him the chance to refute it to my face - but I talked about a projector!"

You can think what you may about Ayers' past but if being associated with him makes a politician "dangerous", then practically every Democrat and Republican in the Greater Chicago area  is dangerous.

Pariah wrote:

You can think what you may about Ayers' past but if being associated with him makes a politician "dangerous", then practically every Democrat and Republican in the Greater Chicago area  is dangerous.

So then shouldn't Obama come out and defend his dealings with Ayers in the past? Since the guy is so harmless, he shouldn't have to obfuscate and downplay his role with Ayers.

I know that for years Bernardine Dorn was denied access to the Bar due to her past actions, and in 2001 on the very day of 9/11 there was a news article in the times where he remained unrepentant and said he wished they had done more. And in 2006 he was essentially saying viva la revolucion and palling around with Chavez.

Now, all of those positions can potentially be defendable, though I'd like to see someone try to do it and run for president. However, Obama in fact hasn't done it. He's said it was just some guy in the neighborhood, that he didn't know the guys history immediately, that he barely knew him that the guy isn't on his campaign, but that what the guy did is despicable.

However, the link to him is far closer than he lets on. He started his campaing in the guys basement, he wrote a blurb for the guys book, he served on a board with him. At some point he had to know the guy tried to bomb the pentagon, got off on a technicality and wasa unrepentant. Ayers, was not unknown at the time. Again, with the I was in the pews of Wrights church for 20 years, but had NO IDEA he was saying anything remotely  incendiary excuses. That Barack sure doesn't pay alot of attention to people he deals with.

If he had any honesty he would own up to his past and try to defend it instead of throwing everyone under the bus. Because it makes him look like either someone hiding something or someone who is truly out of touch.

And I call bull on Obama's supporters saying his association with Ayers is a non issue or a character assassination. Lets say there was someone in the 70's who bombed a few abortion clinics and tried to kill some doctors. He was caught but got off on a tecnicality. He went on to become a philanhtropist due to his daddy's influence, and skirted having to face any jail time.
He said 30 years on that he wished he had done more, and was largely unrepentant, and republican had a more than casual association with him, are you saying it would be no issue? Bush was villified for having Abramoff set foot in the white  house and being seen in the same photograph with him, and Abramoff never tried blowing up the pentagon, or an abortion clinic.

I call bullsmurf on this argument. The fact is Obama was a radical in his day, attended a radical church was part of the democrat socialist party (and not as a young man, he was in his 30's at them time), and now is trying to come off squeaky clean and pretend or hide any of his past. It would be one thing if he said he was in those groups, and offered a cogent argument as to how his views changed, or even better defended his time in said groups. Maybe us conservatives are wrong to be pegging him with these associations, maybe Ayers is actually a really swell guy.

Yet, he's denounced WRight when Wright said something he had said countless times in church previously, and he says that Ayers actions were despicable. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too.

This is not to say that Obama is someone who's out to bomb the pentagon, but it does show the comfort and ease Obama has dealing with radicals who target this country. Maybe he can defend his associations based on a utilitarian argument that people can then understand or he can say, I was a radical in my youth but have tempered my ways. Only he doesn't. Instead he tried to hide his past. And of course since the media is in the tank for him and arent' digging to much its not that hard.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-09 7:16 pm)

The Ayres thing is about McCain attempting to strengthen his presumed "base". It's the opposite tactic of an attempt to broaden McCain's appeal. It's a desperation play, an internal right-wing thing and not one that need overly concern his opponent.   I wouldn't be surprised if the tactic backfired within his presumed base by some small amount.

everlong554 wrote:

Pariah wrote:

You can think what you may about Ayers' past but if being associated with him makes a politician "dangerous", then practically every Democrat and Republican in the Greater Chicago area  is dangerous.

So then shouldn't Obama come out and defend his dealings with Ayers in the past? Since the guy is so harmless, he shouldn't have to obfuscate and downplay his role with Ayers.

I know that for years Bernardine Dorn was denied access to the Bar due to her past actions, and in 2001 on the very day of 9/11 there was a news article in the times where he remained unrepentant and said he wished they had done more. And in 2006 he was essentially saying viva la revolucion and palling around with Chavez.

Now, all of those positions can potentially be defendable, though I'd like to see someone try to do it and run for president. However, Obama in fact hasn't done it. He's said it was just some guy in the neighborhood, that he didn't know the guys history immediately, that he barely knew him that the guy isn't on his campaign, but that what the guy did is despicable.

However, the link to him is far closer than he lets on. He started his campaing in the guys basement, he wrote a blurb for the guys book, he served on a board with him. At some point he had to know the guy tried to bomb the pentagon, got off on a technicality and wasa unrepentant. Ayers, was not unknown at the time. Again, with the I was in the pews of Wrights church for 20 years, but had NO IDEA he was saying anything remotely  incendiary excuses. That Barack sure doesn't pay alot of attention to people he deals with.

If he had any honesty he would own up to his past and try to defend it instead of throwing everyone under the bus. Because it makes him look like either someone hiding something or someone who is truly out of touch.

And I call bull on Obama's supporters saying his association with Ayers is a non issue or a character assassination. Lets say there was someone in the 70's who bombed a few abortion clinics and tried to kill some doctors. He was caught but got off on a tecnicality. He went on to become a philanhtropist due to his daddy's influence, and skirted having to face any jail time.
He said 30 years on that he wished he had done more, and was largely unrepentant, and republican had a more than casual association with him, are you saying it would be no issue? Bush was villified for having Abramoff set foot in the white  house and being seen in the same photograph with him, and Abramoff never tried blowing up the pentagon, or an abortion clinic.

I call bullsmurf on this argument. The fact is Obama was a radical in his day, attended a radical church was part of the democrat socialist party (and not as a young man, he was in his 30's at them time), and now is trying to come off squeaky clean and pretend or hide any of his past. It would be one thing if he said he was in those groups, and offered a cogent argument as to how his views changed, or even better defended his time in said groups. Maybe us conservatives are wrong to be pegging him with these associations, maybe Ayers is actually a really swell guy.

Yet, he's denounced WRight when Wright said something he had said countless times in church previously, and he says that Ayers actions were despicable. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too.

This is not to say that Obama is someone who's out to bomb the pentagon, but it does show the comfort and ease Obama has dealing with radicals who target this country. Maybe he can defend his associations based on a utilitarian argument that people can then understand or he can say, I was a radical in my youth but have tempered my ways. Only he doesn't. Instead he tried to hide his past. And of course since the media is in the tank for him and arent' digging to much its not that hard.

I don't have one problem with anything Obama's pastor was quoted as saying. The truth hurts and Ayers was fighting a criminal government.
A damn shame Americans have become such sheep that similar reactions to Bush have not happened.

Oh man, this 'bombs abortion clinics' line must have been on the official talking points sent out this morning.

A McCain surrogate on CNN is pushing the same comparison right now.

It's all over the cable networks tonight.  This is the final gambit for McCain--get the focus off of the economy at all costs.

Obama's current ads ("time for a president who will change the economy, not change the subject") is much more powerful than what McCain's camp is shoveling.

Who in the hell is running his campaign?  Who thought it was a good idea to announce that they were giving up on Michigan, or that they had to "change the subject" from the economy to trashing Obama?

bratboy wrote:

It's all over the cable networks tonight.  This is the final gambit for McCain--get the focus off of the economy at all costs.

Well, can't be too careful Obama's a guyof the street



Retards rejoice!

bratboy wrote:

Oh man, this 'bombs abortion clinics' line must have been on the official talking points sent out this morning.

A McCain surrogate on CNN is pushing the same comparison right now.

bratboy, are you seriously going to suggest that if it were a radical on the right who is actually a terrorist (ie actually set of bombs that targeted various buildings) that it would be completely irrelevant to you or people on this board if a republican had such an association? Seriously? And you don't have to go far to get official talking points to go from an abortion bomber to a bomber of the pentagon (in fact whenever someone mentions islamic terrorism, don't people on this board often say "but what about the abortion bombers", in other words that there are extremists in christianity too. So take one of those extremists that are equated to terrorists when you want to make a moral equivalency argument. And compare him to Ayers. what is the difference?

I know you want to sweep this under the rug, but you don't really have a satisfactory answer as to how obama can justify serving on a board with this guy. And it defies any sense of logic that were this Mccains extremist buddy who actually set off bombs who he served on boards with that you and your chums wouldn't be salivating over the connection. You KNOW that its relevant. Would you serve on  board with someone who once tried to bomb the pentagon?

Obama might have a valid reason behind his decisions but he certainly hasn't said anything about it. He's a closed book and we, in fact don't know that much about him .YEt behind the scenes he's joining the socialist democrat party, is dealing with radical preachers and radical terrorists who actually tried to take down the pentagon. YOu make the argument that we are making him out to be a radical. Well if he isn't then he should defend why he associated with these people in a way that shows he's not a radical. ANd he can't or wont do it.

Did he not know that Ayers tried to blow up the pentagon? That says something about him. Did he agree with him and thus found their world views were in accordance? Did he simply not care? That says something about his character. If he wants peoples votes then owes it to them to explain his position.

Additionally one might be more willing to understand, if say Ayers had ever repented or showed that he had reformed his views. Did he do that? No, he said in 2001 that he wished he had done more and didn't regret his bombings.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-09 9:12 pm)

bratboy wrote:

McCain and Palin both appeared on Fox today, and both talked about Ayers.  McCain was on the ABC news tonight, doing the same thing.

The best part was when Gibson pointed out that Obama said he was surprised McCain wouldn't "say it to his face."  McCain's rage was palpable....

Video of tonight's episode of ABC "World News Tonight"   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 … amp;page=1

McCain was not as tense as in the debates, nor as crude.   But he did keep mentioning Ayers, while proclaiming his "passion" and "courage."