Say Anything Blog

I’m having flashbacks...this Bill Ayer’s guy keeps popping up:

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/what_is_free_speech/

In 2004, Dickinson State University invited a self-proclaimed communist and admitted bomber of the anti-war Vietnam era to campus on the public dime.

Keep Digging, I heard that Barak’s kindergarten teacher once kissed Huey Newton of the Black Panthers.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Bob Dylan

Davinski,

An ongoing pattern of association with domestic terrorists should be disqualifying for any rational actor.  That it is not for you surprises none of us here in the least, comporting as it does with the opinions you have oft expressed here.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rob, please tell me you have more to attack Mr. Obama with besides this drivvel.  He is invited by the University of Illinois to appear on a panel at a conference and now he is supporting the Weatherman.  This is the best you can do?  Really?

Stick to your dayjob, because you suck at attack politics.

Andydakota is perfectly okay with a potential president hanging out with anti-American terrorists.

Shows what low standards the left has these days.

An ongoing pattern of association with domestic terrorists should be disqualifying for any rational actor.  That it is not for you surprises none of us here in the least, comporting as it does with the opinions you have oft expressed here.

Rod is right it is unacceptable.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

andydakota: Ignore McCracken’s personal remarks! However, Rob has presnted many threads here at SA which raise serious questions about Obama’s background, his proposed programs and his competence to be POTUS. He has not engaged in personal attacks and has always tried to examine Obama’s candidacy in an intelligent, objective manner. Even if you are a liberal, it should be of serious interest to read about these matters to make sure before you cast your vote in this year’s election you can answer all doubts about Obama confidently. You wouldn’t want to vote from a position of ignorance would you?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

By this logic, we can conclude the following: the Bush family has ties with the Bin Laden family and other Saudi Arabians, therefore the Bush family is in partnership with Osama Bin Laden and is therefore behind 9/11.

Ken,

Good point!  Those Obama supporters who dismiss his associations with admitted domestic terrorists reveal as much about their own intemperate ideology and callous contempt for the US as they do Mr. Obama’s.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

This is a ridiculous smear in an attempt to call Obama a terrorist. 

He gets asked to appear on a panel and accepts.  This does not show that he sympathises with Ayers views.

He goes to a farewell dinner for a professor at his alma mata which Ayers also attends.  This does not show that he sympathises with Ayers views.

They are both public figures in Chicago.  Their paths are going to cross.  There is no indication that Obam supports his views at all.

This is underhanded and dirty.

Our self proclaimed Socialist opines:

By this logic, we can conclude the following: the Bush family has ties with the Bin Laden family and other Saudi Arabians, therefore the Bush family is in partnership with Osama Bin Laden and is therefore behind 9/11.

No, not really.

Unless you can show that the actual individuals with whom you allege the Bush’s have had contact are admitted and un-reformed terrorists as William Ayres is.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Unless you can show that the actual individuals with whom you allege the Bush’s have had contact are admitted and un-reformed terrorists…

No prob. Here ya go.

Jack,

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Those Obama supporters who dismiss his associations with admitted domestic terrorists reveal as much about their own intemperate ideology and callous contempt for the US as they do Mr. Obama’s.

Like most generalizations, in my opinion this one above is overly broad, judgmental and wrong. Most Obama supporters are emotionally based voters, not looking at the facts at all and not wanting to accept the negatives, as they are seriously in love with the new black movie star candidate and no one ever really examines a new love very closlely or accepts criticism of the target of their affections very well. But, they are not all evil people with callous contempt for America. In fact most of them would passionately disagree with that mean spirited characterization of them, they sincerely, honestly think are really compassionate, spiritual minded people, they think their socialist beliefs are not socialist at all, only kind hearted and charitable towards people in need.

Of course, I think they are wrong about Obama and their socialist tendencies are actually harmful, not beneficial at all. They are willfully ignorant of the facts because their emotions are caught up in this charismatic, nice looking black man/candidate and they need to be encouraged to face the facts, as I encouraged andydakota in the hopes, like a slap in the face, it will wake them up from this dangerous daydream.

Lastly, like the many Paulites commenting at SA, too many conservatives here think that vulgar language, personal attacks or overly broad and mean spiritied characterizations will win over those caight up in the Obama campaign, but like the Paulites, all they do is sow seeds of division, drive more moderate to conservative Democrats away from the Republican candidate and cause the more liberal among them to simply dig in their heels.

Note: I am not suggesting any vulgar langauge or personal attacks were involved in the above comment, only that it was an overly broad characterization of a group of people, slightly mean-spirited and counterproductive.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Lestat,

I have seen no one accuse Barrack H. Obama of being a terrorist.  The now demonstrated and documented pattern of associating with admitted domestic terrorists should be disqualifying for any rational actor.

By the same token, Barrack H. Obama could personally and unequivocally condemn William Ayres and put this issue to bed.  Doing so would risk alienating a substantial element of his base of support, and is thus unlikely.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

*shrug*

Nice comeback, rod.

Jack

It

Is the necessary and sufficient answer to crankery.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

This is a ridiculous smear in an attempt to call Obama a terrorist.  He gets asked to appear on a panel and accepts.  This does not show that he sympathises with Ayers views. He goes to a farewell dinner for a professor at his alma mata which Ayers also attends.  This does not show that he sympathises with Ayers views. They are both public figures in Chicago.  Their paths are going to cross.  There is no indication that Obam supports his views at all.

Lestat, as he often does, got this one exactly right!

Absent proof that Obama shares political sympathies with these people, it is unfair to condemn him or other politicians for such loose asociations. It was like Hillary and Bill with some slum lord from Chicago, they take hundreds of thousands of pictures with people they just met and cannot possibly be responsible for knowing every possible fact about them before doing so, it is part of the political game.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I’m sure you think so, kid.

Jack,

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Neiman,

Politics is all about appearances.  A single joint appearance would be happenstance.  The established pattern far less so.  And Barrack H. Obama can still put this issue to bed by personally and unequivocally condemning William Ayres, the Weathermen, and their campaign of domestic terrorism.

I doubt he will do so, since in so doing he would alienate a substantial element of his base of support and admit error.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

I have seen no one accuse Barrack H. Obama of being a terrorist.

It’s called guilt by association. 

The right continually points out his middle name is Hussein, as if having the same name as somebody would make them similar.

The right calls him Osama Obama because as if having rhyming names would them similar.

In this case you can show that two Chicago public figures show up at the same events in an attempt to say they are similar.

The whole point of this smear is to call Obama a terrorist.

Lestat:

Calling him Hussien or Osama is what passes for clever in the right-wing echo chamber.

It’s called guilt by association.

Not really.  It’s important to know who a potential President has for friends, isn’t it?  You lefties are always using pictures of President Bush shaking hands with some Islamic leader(a job requirement, btw; it’s called diplomacy).  Barack wasn’t forced to associate with those people in any way, so it’s relevant to who he might hang with. and be influenced by, should he become President.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Calling him Hussien or Osama is what passes for clever in the right-wing echo chamber.

Hey, I didn’t name him ‘Hussein’.

As for Osama . . . hell, even Ted Kennedy calls him that.

Face it, the guy’s name is just remarkably awful.

It’s not the Republicans’ fault.

Lestat replies with:

It’s called guilt by association.

Well then, wouldn’t you agree that dissociating from and condemning (personally and in an unequivocal manner) would rid him of any such guilt by removing the association?

In this case you can show that two Chicago public figures show up at the same events in an attempt to say they are similar.

It also says something about Chicago public life that an admitted and un-reformed domestic terrorist is such an omnipresent fixture of it, does it not?  Then again, Chicago remains a one party town, doesn’t it?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney: “Neiman, Politics is all about appearances.”

I agree that the appearance of evil can be as real and destructive as actual involvement. My only point was if this was a casual appearance or two, I think to imply sympathy with the causes of these other people is inaccurate.

Robert108:

“It’s called guilt by association.” “Not really.  It’s important to know who a potential President has for friends, isn’t it?"[/quote]

Fairness is required and I think what Rob was talking about was a pattern of behavior that ‘might’ have darker implications, without assuming absolute guilt. The question for me is, were these friends or causual happenstance acquaintances in a city wherein these associations will occur frequently without it meaning anything?

On the other hand, I do agree it is an easy matter to deal with, have Obama simply deny any agreement with the radical beliefs of these people and assure the voters these people would not have occasion to be in the same place as him in the future.

Calling him Hussien or Osama is what passes for clever in the right-wing echo chamber.

I despise every thing about the person responding to this matter, but Ted Kenndy did first make that variation on Obama’s name popular and I doubt it has much, if any mean spirited motives with its use, it’s just humor! I have used it often like I call Hillary the Hildabeast, pure humor, a play on their names for fun.

---

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It’s important to know who a potential President has for friends, isn’t it?

You have yet to show that they are more than casual acquaintences.  If you really believed this you would not have supported Bush, who is close to the Saudi Royal family, the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

It also says something about Chicago public life that an admitted and un-reformed domestic terrorist is such an omnipresent fixture of it, does it not?  Then again, Chicago remains a one party town, doesn’t it?

You have 3-4 instances where they have been together over 10 years.  Not quite omnipresent.

Lestat: Thanks for again illustrating leftie double standards, but let me ask you: How many terrorists has Barack Hussein Obama killed?  George Bush has already proven that he will not only stand up to Islamic terrorism, he will defeat it.  BHO, on the other hand, has not only pledged to cut and run from Iraq, if elected, but will also sit down with the terrorists as if they are real human beings.  I would say that his associations are critical in judging how he will rule as a leftie President, especially since he wants so much power over our private lives, on an everyday basis, with his monstrous govt “programs”.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I wish everyone to the Right of Lestat would take a deep breath and realize: (a) Rob had no ill motives, he raised a legitimate campaign issue about what he felt was a pattern of behavior involving Obama’s associations with people from a known terrorist type group. It was a legitimate point of debate. (b) Lesat is appealing for fairness, pointing out why if it was okay to make this association, there should be no complaints from the Right about raising the Bush and Saudi Arabia connections in the same manner. (c) This asociation by Obama may be innocent or have more sinister meanings, absent making accusations at this early stage, there is a need to keep our minds open as more information is forthcoming.

I am still glad Rob raised the issue, now if and when more information arises, I will have some better knowledge of the history of this matter.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The error is comparing Obama, who has yet to accomplish much politically, to an accomplished President.
They are not equal, and thus their actions are examined through different lenses, so to speak.
I have yet to find anything “fair” about Lestat’s comments, on any thread.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I wish everyone to the Right of Lestat would take a deep breath and realize: (a) Rob had no ill motives,

I don’t think three quarters of the planet reads Say Anything!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

The ironic thing is that all of the attempted smear jobs on “Osama Hussein” or whatever the hell you want to change his name to is going to accomplish nothing other than turning voters off to the smear artists, and help Osama Hussein win the election. Osama Hussein is not my first choice (Kucinich was the only viable Democratic choice), but he is the only one left I can vote for.

When voters are faced with a choice between another Bush term (via McCain) and something different, the other choice (Osama) is the obvious winner. Or maybe enough voter fraud and rigged voting machines in key states like Ohio or Florida can put McCain over the top.

enough voter fraud and rigged voting machines

Smear anyone? Projection? Tinfoil hat slipping?
BTW, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. If you have a problem with his name, your problem is with his momma!

Kucinich was the only viable Democratic choice

I must visit your planet someday!  Or at least buy you a dictionary with the word “viable” in it!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Socialist: A smear campaign? To deliberately spread false information to discredit Obama? That is in the eye of the beholder to a great degree! People most often use that term to cutt off any and all legitimate examinations of a candidate’s record of accomplishments, policy positions and credentials for office. In public life a candidate must be prepared for genuine and false information to be spread, face them openly and have answers for each issue. If they fail to anticipate and deal with them, that alone means they are not qualified for office.

Obama is untested in most ways as a candidate for POTUS, he needs to be ready to deal with every issue or get out of the kitchen!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman, you say we are to keep an open mind but yet you write this tripe: 

They are willfully ignorant of the facts because their emotions are caught up in this charismatic, nice looking black man/candidate and they need to be encouraged to face the facts, as I encouraged andydakota in the hopes, like a slap in the face, it will wake them up from this dangerous daydream.

A dangerous daydream? Quite the contrary.  I have looked at his positions and find that I agree with them.  I am not some pie in the sky love sick teenager here.  I’ve been around the block a time or two.  Yet you and others here call the citizens of this country who are backing him cultish, messianic because he has millions of millions of supporters. If this were George Bush, or John McCain, you would be cheering right now.

Bush has caused this country to want profound change.  Just look at the right track wrong track numbers.  The train has left the station.  The citizens of this country are choosing the change to Barack Hussein Obama. 

As much as you try to smear with the weathermen nonsense and whatever else you will trump up, will not stick.  Obama has more supporters than the republicans and McCain can muster and even when the swiftboating begins, we will be prepared.

even when the swiftboating begins

You confuse “swiftboating” with “Borking”.
Bork was smeared with falsehoods. The swiftboaters told the truth about the very French looking John Kerry.
Are you saying that you will be prepared when folks start telling the truth about Obama?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

andydakota offers:

when the swiftboating begins, we will be prepared.

What?  Barrack H. Obama was too young to have been on that boat with John Kerry in Cambodia over Christmas of 1968.  Nor has Barrack H. Obama written himself up for any decorations, nor refused to release his compete and unexpurgated military records.  Then again, Barrack H. Obama has not served his country in uniform, and has less of a record of accomplishment than Kerry did (does, for that matter).  I seem to recall the Kerry campaign claimed to be ready to answer any and all such difficult questions as well…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

And now it begins....

andydakota: I apologize, I didn’t realize that you would assume talking about liberals generally, meant I was talking about you only. I should have mentioned you as the exception! Further, I am expressing my views from the Right in a good natured, civil manner that you might not feel under attack by everyone an dhave an opportunity to see the value in critiquing Obama’s candidacy.

As to the Messianic comments I’ve made about Obama, I believe his support is at a level of near god worship, which even some liberal media have noticed. But, we will clear that up right now and see if you really are the exception and are making an intelligent decision or are voting your emotions:

(1) What three legislative and/or diplomatic accomplishments of Senator Obama can you list that makes you think Obama is qualified to to be POTUS in your mind? Please be specific.

(2) What three other things can you point to in Obama’s history that objectively indicates he has the experience, credentials and public temperment to be POTUS?

(3) What three top public policy programs has Obama proposed that causes you to be able say you know exactly what he means when he says he represents ‘change?”

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I think andy is baracking up the wrong tree!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof: I have missed your terrible an doften very funny puns, I am glad the Crown Prince of Puns is back in the saddle!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

This asociation by Obama may be innocent or have more sinister meanings, absent making accusations at this early stage, there is a need to keep our minds open as more information is forthcoming.

And that’s the point I’ve been makingto Rodney and Ken for days now. We have several meetings between these two which seem to be little more than casual encounters (many of them not by Obama’s design). That doesn’t mean that Obama endorces their views or even that they’re friends. It simply means he has had contact.

And in the original article posted here about it, Obama CONDEMNED the weathermen:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630_Page2.html

“Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence,” said Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton. “But he was an 8-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost 40 years ago is ridiculous.”

While made by his (flack), it was a campaign release. (Since that was the reason Rodney offered last time to ignore it.) We hold campaign staff comments against a candidate if they say something stupid. So why doesn’t this count?

This is an unfair shot at Obama. He has done nothing wrong here, and has condemned the actions of the Weathermen. Holding a few brief encounters with these people against him (absent any real evidence) is assinine.

Lets throw into the mix the two conferences in which Obama and Ayres were both participants, having virtually identical stances on at least one issue.

The first was organized by Michelle Obama in 1997 and Ayres was the headliner, both appear to have the same view on the topic.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/97/971104.juvenile.justice.shtml

The second was in 2002 and was (get this, it is really rich (from a domestic terrorist point of view—kinda like Lynn Stewart discussing legal ethics!):

part of the Center’s mission of helping to create a more engaged civil society, working towards social change, fostering coalitions between theorists and activists, and combating anti-intellectualism in contemporary culture. It will be both a celebration of ideas and a rigorous examination of the roles and responsibilities that intellectuals play in society. (emphasis added)

Obama and Ayres were on the, “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis,” panel which was to give, “Experiences and applications of intellectual work in urgent situations.” (Yea, like blowing up people)
http://www.uic.edu/classes/las/las400/conferencealt.htm

So, can we believe Ayres and Obama have the same basic philosophy when it comes to high minded intellectuals and how they should behave (remember Ayres is non-repentant except he wishes they had blown up more bombs)?  Not unless there is a transcript showing agreement—as an aside, someone could see if they could contact an attendee to see how it played out, but I doubt anyone who attended this would be willing to discuss it.

However it is telling that the Obama’s respected this man enough to not only invite him to participate but to continue having this much professional contact with him.
DKK

I repeat what I’ve said in the other two posts:

I have had associations with much worse people in my life than these two. And if I ever run for office, I’d consider anyone who brought the issue up to be an idiot. I would not go out of my way to condemn people I had casual contact with a decade or so ago. Most likely I wouldn’t even address it as it would be a non issue.

Absent more damning proof, I agree with Socialist, Jack, and Lestat for a change. So all of the noise about bankrupt leftists like:

Good point!  Those Obama supporters who dismiss his associations with admitted domestic terrorists reveal as much about their own intemperate ideology and callous contempt for the US as they do Mr. Obama’s.

can be put to bed as I am certainly not a leftist, liberal, or democrat. Nor am I an Obama supporter. And I was one of the first ones here to say I thought this was much ado about nothing.

There is a lot to dislike about Obama, from his socialist ideas, to his naive worldview, and his unrealistic beliefs about what it would even take to impliment his own policies. We have more than enough reason to dislike him without making up more reasons.

This is no less unfair than the McCain adultery story.

So, can we believe Ayres and Obama have the same basic philosophy when it comes to high minded intellectuals and how they should behave (remember Ayres is non-repentant except he wishes they had blown up more bombs)?  Not unless there is a transcript showing agreement—as an aside, someone could see if they could contact an attendee to see how it played out, but I doubt anyone who attended this would be willing to discuss it.

That’s ridiculous. People can agree on a single issue without agreeing on all of them. I share Ron Paul’s view that government needs to be smaller. It doesn’t mean I agree that Iraq is an illegal war.

Come on people.

Well Kenny, you did come right out of the gate defending Obama on this one.

I didn’t take that to mean you were unreconstructed leftist or anything like that.

You gotta call ‘em like you see ‘em, I suppose.

I don’t see how this automatically links with the McCain flap though. I don’t agree that if you thought the McCain thing was unfair that you MUST also agree this this charge against Obama is unfair also.

Apples and oranges.

Kenny said:

That’s ridiculous. People can agree on a single issue without agreeing on all of them.

Kenny, what’s ridiculous about what I said?  Read what I said again.  I don’t even claim to know if they agree on the issue at all, you jumped to the guilt by association, not I!
DKK

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how, so called, “intellectuals,” have to hold conferences on things like fostering coalitions between, theorists and activists (all intellectuals of course!)! 

How does that work in Ayres mind?  The theorist plans the bombing and the activist actually does the bombing?  Where do downs syndrome suffers fit into that equation?

Sometimes it seems that if conservatives held the same type of conference using the same, “code words,” the left would call it a militia meeting.  But being intellectuals, they know better, like the proper time to bomb a NCO dance!

The level of arrogance is really astounding and ironically goes unnoticed by these very intellectuals.
DKK

What’s wrong with a fellowship of bomb-throwers having an intellectual meeting of the minds?  Nothing more to see here.

What is most ironic in all this is the unremarked role reversal.  Ayers and Dorn are, inarguably, domestic terrorists.  Yet when their affiliation with Obama is examined publicly, an affiliation that no one denies, that is regarded by those on the Left as an “attempted smear.” Which is kinda handy, since no one on the Left appears to want to defend what few policy details Obama has been unable to conceal.

But when John McCain is confronted with accusations of misconduct by the New York Times, accusations which are wholly unsbstantiated, those on the Left nodd their collective (and collectivist) heads in faux sage approval.  Just as they’ve done for every baseless, foul-mouthed accusation thrown at members of the Bush administration for the past 7 years, ever since AlGore proved himself too inept to win his own home state.

Obama’s association with Ayers and Dorn isn’t so much the point as what that association tells us about the ideology and policies Obama favors but refuses to discuss in detail.  Those who defend Obama may do so out of ignorance, though more likely that ignorance is willful.  But those who defend Obama, self righteously claiming “smear job”, but who have themselves engaged in exactly that same behavior that they now decry, are hypocrites.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I have missed your terrible and often very funny puns,

Thank you! I wouldn’t want any of you to think I was putting on Ayres!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Not to mention, the ‘facts’ in the McCain case are very much in dispute, unlike the facts of Obama’s association with known terrorists.

The question isn’t whether Obama is friends with these terrorists, the question is how close and sympathetic he is towards them.

Ayers even mentioned Obama in his 1998 book:

Not exactly “Mr Rogers’ Neighborhood”, was it?

It seems to me that if we can waste taxpayer money investigating baseball players, we can certainly investigate the Obama-Weathermen connection.  If there’s nothing there, so much the better, and if there is....we have dodged a bullet, no?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

It seems to me that if we can waste taxpayer money investigating baseball players, we can certainly investigate the Obama-Weathermen connection.  If there’s nothing there, so much the better, and if there is....we have dodged a bullet, no?

So you want Congress to investigate Barack Obama’s associatins. 

Read the first amendment.  It has something about Freedom of Assembly in it.  It is amazing that you can even claim to support the Constitution.

Lestat, you do actually understand what the constitution says (and doesn’t say) don’t you?
DKK

andydakota: I am waiting for your response to my questions so I can vote for Obama too! Where are you? They were easy questions!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Read the first (sic) amendment (sic).  It has something about Freedom of Assembly in it.  It is amazing that you can even claim to support the Constitution.

Lestat,

Be careful here.  You’re on the brink of sounding suspiciously like Neiman has recently.  It is NOT a rationally defensible position.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Ken,

Yikes!  I was more on target than I thought, when I wrote:

It also says something about Chicago public life that an admitted and un-reformed domestic terrorist is such an omnipresent fixture of it, does it not?  Then again, Chicago remains a one party town, doesn’t it?

Makes one wonder which party is the one party of Chi-town, don’t it?

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

So you want Congress to investigate Barack Obama’s associatins.

Didn’t I specifically say the “Obama-Weathermen” connection?  I thought so.  You seem to have the leftie confusion between the particular and the general.
As far as freedom of association goes, I don’t think it applies to terrorists.  Obama is not entitled to be elected President of the United States without a background check.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Heh, I actually had a run-in with Farrakhan’s goons at that exact location when I was a repo man on the South Side.

They came up to my car and demanded to know what I was doing there (I was sitting surveillance) and I told them to shove off. They called the cops, who told the goons to back off.

Sometimes the cops can be the repo man’s best friends.

Here’s a link to a picture of Barack Hussein Obama in Muslim garb:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

As far as freedom of association goes, I don’t think it applies to terrorists.

If it isn’t illegal, I believe it applies to all associations.  Though this association hasn’t been proven beyond casual acquaintenceship.

Obama is not entitled to be elected President of the United States without a background check.

I don’t remember the background check part of the Constitution.  If the people elect him the only requirements for President are 35 years old and a natural citizen. 

This whole story is designed just to smear him.

Be careful here.  You’re on the brink of sounding suspiciously like Neiman has recently.  It is NOT a rationally defensible position.

It is a Constitutionally defensible position, I don’t care how you define rational.  If their ins’t a crime involved Congress has not business investigating any associations of any citiaen.

I don’t think this ‘incriminating’ in any way. When you go to a foreign land, sometimes you are expected to dress like the locals. Not a big deal.

But . . . I agree with Gateway Pundit that it is definitely a ‘funny hat’ moment.

Reminded me of John Kerry in those NASA scrubs.

Lestat,

I’m convinced that Barack H. Obama is an honest product of the Chicago political machine.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

This whole story is designed just to smear him.

Wrong.  It’s only a smear if it’s not true, like the McCain story; that was a smear, but this one is true.
It raises a question about how tough he might be on the terrorists who are out to destroy us.  It’s not the only thing to worry about: he has promised to cut and run away from the terrorists in Iraq, and has also promised to treat the terrorist dictators as equals.  When you put it all together, he appears to be soft on terrorism, which is a legitimate concern for the American people when selecting a President.
I never said the background check was in the Constitution, but are you claiming we aren’t interested in a potential President’s background?  That’s foolish.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I don’t think this ‘incriminating’ in any way

Makes him look a little wimpy. But, it does “lift and separate” nicely!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)