Forums | MacLife

everlong554 wrote:

in the  bank for Obama.

We've seen you drone on and on about being 'in the tank' for Obama, but this is a new one!

So who's dumber, the retard arguing or the guy arguing with the retard?

Michelle Malkin

bratboy wrote:

what happened to ann coulter, anyway

here

Note that it is Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild's (she of recent "redneck" fame) second husband and he's a liberal ex-politician from NYC.

Ayers ACORN Wright POW Ayers Maverick ACORN POW POW Ayers Maverick Wright

bratboy wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

If they are running for president I would certainly want to hear their rationale and have it explained thoroughly. It would be totally legitimate to have that association as part of the debate even if they are republicans. They might even be able to justify their association, but I'd still want the association to be addressed.

Of course, Obama has addressed it (apparently to an extent that satisfies most Americans), and yet John McCain insists that he hasn't been honest about it.  Though as best I can tell, McCain bases that assertion on a line from one of the primary debates taken out-of-context (which factcheck.org has called him on). 



And now McCain has refused to condemn the comparison of Obama to Bin Laden, despite the fact that his spokesperson had already done so.

How did he address it? He keeps changing the story. Now he says he thought that he had been rehabilitated. However, in 1998 while he was working with Ayers Ayers and Dorn appeeared on Connie Chungs show and basically reiterated how they wished they had done more and in fact did not renounce their past actions, then later I think with Obama still serving with AYers there was the article on 9/11 where Ayers again stressed that he wished he had done more.

There was also an interview in 1996 on PBS (again while Obama was on the board with him):

LL AYERS: I'm sure there are people who think that the opposition to the war was wrong and would like to re-write that history, but the opposition to the war was right, and the opposition came from all quarters, and those who opposed it should be proud of that and should say they're proud of that. To apologize for that opposition would be, I think, a perversion. To apologize for militantly opposing racism, which I think is needed now more than ever, to me is a perversion.

...

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [interviewer]: As you look back now, the bombings, what the Weathermen did claim credit for, would you do it differently now?

BILL AYERS: Oh, I don't--I don't know that there's much--I doubt it, not if the same conditions prevailed and the same kind of--and I knew what I knew then and didn't know any more than I knew then, probably not.

...

BERNARDINE DOHRN: Resistance by every means necessary is happening and will continue to happen within the United States as well as around the world, and I remain committed to the struggle ahead. [ed -- did I say boasting about their past? My bad.]

...

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Also central, the desire to make a fundamental radical change in society. Would they do it all again? They say, absolutely.

So where in history is this moment when he was rehabbed, and did Obama not see those articles or that tv show? Did it give him no pause whatsoever?

Again, Obama is clarifying that he thought Ayers had been rehabbed. Which implies that if AYers hadn't been rehabbed that he probably wouldn't have sat on the board with him. How is his positoin on Ayers different now than it was then. Is he sayign that in fact AYers was not rehabilitated after all (in other words, like Rev. WRight, he had no idea that such utterances occured)? Then clearly it would be an issue to raise regarding character as Obama would otherwise have raised it (as per his assertion) were there no rehabilitation. But it does show then the lack of care and poor judgement that he didn't have the bare mininum knowledge of Ayers while working with him. What evidence did he have that in fact he was rehabbed. Certainly it didn't come from Ayers mouth.

and its not simply the bombings and violence taht are disturbing in relation to Ayers and Obama but also the world view. Ayersis and was anti the american system and against capitalism. He was in effect a communist.

The Weathermen were initially part of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) within the SDS, splitting from the RYM's Maoists by claiming there was no time to build a vanguard party and that revolutionary war against the United States government and the capitalist system should begin immediately. Their founding document called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements[30] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."[

Even if you say he somehow reformed his methods, he still is at heart the same radical. Now to those who also want a classless world based on communism, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. But is Obama one of these radicals? ie. does he want a classless world based on world communism or is he middle of the road. We are undergoing a financial crisis at the moment. Is Obama going to use free market principles to grow the economy or is his inclination the more radical overthrow of the establishments system? Obama says he's just your run of the mill guy, yet his speeches are all steeped in this revolutionary lingo, and most of his associates from prior to him going to the senate are similarly far left radicals.

The same can be said for Rev. WRight. Leaving aside the blustery language. Underscoring the belief system is again a socialist frame and the notion of the US and its systems as being fundamentally evil. Now this is not say that Wright is in fact wrong or that his argument can't be defended. IF you're a socialist or versed in identity politics this is standards stuff. But the point is, Obama seems to have continuously surrounded himself with people who share that worldview. So I'd assume that he'd have to share to some degree that worldview as well (as otherwise why waste 20 years in a church whos belief system is at odds with yours). Again, who he associates with is relevant.Obama does not allay fears when he denies knowing anything that Wright said in the past until confronted with it, and it makes him out to be a liar and makes it sound like he's trying to keep his true intention hidden.

Again, if he is a radical (or what I would perceive to be a radical - not in terms of extremist tactics, but sharing a similar worldview) and has the same belief structure and has no problem with it then that is the type of candidate he should run as. Since he's running as your harmless everyday democrat (albeit while suggesting that his candidacy will be the start of revolutionary change) then the difference between his background and what he's presenting needs to be addressed by Obama.

In fairness to Obama, you don't hear him saying things like Ayres, or like Wright, but his past seems to belie his more middle of the road rhetoric. He could say "I used to be, like many people in my college days, more of a radical but as I've gotten older my views became much more mainstream" and that would ease a lot of concerns (though considering he constantly advocates revolutionary change its at odds with this persona). But rather than say that he instead gets confronted with his mentors speeches and has to disown him disingenuously as if he never heard such phrases in 20 years. its just not credible.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-10-13 5:42 pm)

everlong554 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

If they are running for president I would certainly want to hear their rationale and have it explained thoroughly. It would be totally legitimate to have that association as part of the debate even if they are republicans. They might even be able to justify their association, but I'd still want the association to be addressed.

Of course, Obama has addressed it (apparently to an extent that satisfies most Americans), and yet John McCain insists that he hasn't been honest about it.  Though as best I can tell, McCain bases that assertion on a line from one of the primary debates taken out-of-context (which factcheck.org has called him on). 



And now McCain has refused to condemn the comparison of Obama to Bin Laden, despite the fact that his spokesperson had already done so.

How did he address it? He keeps changing the story. Now he says he thought that he had been rehabilitated. However, in 1998 while he was working with Ayers Ayers and Dorn appeeared on Connie Chungs show and basically reiterated how they wished they had done more and in fact did not renounce their past actions, then later I think with Obama still serving with AYers there was the article on 9/11 where Ayers again stressed that he wished he had done more.

There was also an interview in 1996 on PBS (again while Obama was on the board with him):

LL AYERS: I'm sure there are people who think that the opposition to the war was wrong and would like to re-write that history, but the opposition to the war was right, and the opposition came from all quarters, and those who opposed it should be proud of that and should say they're proud of that. To apologize for that opposition would be, I think, a perversion. To apologize for militantly opposing racism, which I think is needed now more than ever, to me is a perversion.

...

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [interviewer]: As you look back now, the bombings, what the Weathermen did claim credit for, would you do it differently now?

BILL AYERS: Oh, I don't--I don't know that there's much--I doubt it, not if the same conditions prevailed and the same kind of--and I knew what I knew then and didn't know any more than I knew then, probably not.

...

BERNARDINE DOHRN: Resistance by every means necessary is happening and will continue to happen within the United States as well as around the world, and I remain committed to the struggle ahead. [ed -- did I say boasting about their past? My bad.]

...

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Also central, the desire to make a fundamental radical change in society. Would they do it all again? They say, absolutely.

So where in history is this moment when he was rehabbed, and did Obama not see those articles or that tv show? Did it give him no pause whatsoever?

Again, Obama is clarifying that he thought Ayers had been rehabbed. Which implies that if AYers hadn't been rehabbed that he probably wouldn't have sat on the board with him. How is his positoin on Ayers different now than it was then. Is he sayign that in fact AYers was not rehabilitated after all (in other words, like Rev. WRight, he had no idea that such utterances occured)? Then clearly it would be an issue to raise regarding character as Obama would otherwise have raised it (as per his assertion) were there no rehabilitation. But it does show then the lack of care and poor judgement that he didn't have the bare mininum knowledge of Ayers while working with him. What evidence did he have that in fact he was rehabbed. Certainly it didn't come from Ayers mouth.

You from VA?

McLean, Va.: Wow, no mention of ACORN and voter fraud in the entire article. Do you think you are providing unbiased reporting? It seems that the Obama campaign's effort on the ground has created an atmosphere where Obama volunteers will do whatever they can to get voters, including voter fraud. Is this a risk?

Alec MacGillis: I've gotten several questions about ACORN, which is much in the news now. I think there is an important distinction to make here. Questions have indeed been raised in several states about ACORN workers submitting blatantly bogus registrations to state officials -- the names of pro football players, etc. But realize what this means -- this is voter registration fraud, but it is not proof of actual voter fraud until someone actually shows up at the polls trying to vote under one of these bogus names, and there is no sign yet of that being attempted. From all indications, these workers are defrauding ACORN itself -- they are submitting false names to get paid more for their work. Indeed, ACORN has cooperated on the investigation in Nevada. This is not to say that that organization or any other will not be bending any rules on Election Day, and we'll be monitoring things closely on that score. But what has been reported so far is simply another matter.

Workin' the refs much?

However, the fact-based reply actually surprised me. Wouldn't be bullied. No apologies.

However, I doubt that makes any difference to the Tommy Walker's  around.

Last edited by daemon (2008-10-13 5:44 pm)

Can the angry crowds storyline get any better?  Why, yes it can!

Palin mistakes fans for protesters at Va. rally

RICHMOND, Va.—Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin mistook some of her own fans for hecklers Monday at a rally that drew thousands.

A massive crowd of at least 20,000 spread across the parking lot of Richmond International Raceway, and scores of people on the outer periphery more than 100 yards from the stage could not hear.

"Louder! Louder!" they began chanting, and the cry spread across the crowd to Palin's left. Some pointed skyward, urging that the volume be increased.

Palin stopped her remarks briefly and looked toward the commotion.

"I hope those protesters have the courage and honor to give veterans thanks for their right to protest," she said.

Some in the crowd tried to shout toward her what was really being said, but she couldn't hear them.

D'oh!

Link.

here's a cute comment culled from the left:

I’m really starting to think that neocons are afraid of liberals taking over America because they can’t handle peace. It frightens them.

And it is entirely plausible. Can you believe that?

Sometimes it's not protesters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27188346/

Special Comment