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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

*shrug*

Nice comeback, rod.

Jack

It

Is the necessary and sufficient answer to crankery.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

I’m sure you think so, kid.

Jack,

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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.

---

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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?”

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

I think andy is baracking up the wrong tree!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

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.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

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.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

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.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

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!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

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.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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

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

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Lestat, please cite specifically what provision of the constitution prevents a lawful investigation of a person’s meetings with others by congress or any government body.
DKK

Lestat,

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

Yes Lestat, pay attention, if you respond rationally and civilly to a position offered by someone, especially by a Front Page Poster, Bat One will blindly defend them absent offering any facts whatsoever to support his attack, he’ll criticize you because he doesn’t like your tone, and even when you patiently detail why his observation was wrong, using exact quotations and diagramming the paragraph, he will still lie and defend his intimate Front Page bitch, because the facts and honesty are not part of his nature. He will even use it as a pretext to attack you or your children!

Bat One does not agree with Freedom of Speech or Assembly if he can use it to blindly defend the indefensible. He lost all my respect, he is just another nut case!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Rodney Graves

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

Oh that is so wrong on so many levels, but most probably ture!
DKK

Be careful here.  You’re on the brink of sounding suspiciously like Neiman has recently.

Oh, remember Bat Shit, I left you alone since yesterday, after your blind and indefensible support of your bitch, I didn’t start this little game with you today pal! I was willing to forget about your lying nonsense yesterday. Unless, as I suspect you are all pissed and have your little girl lace panties all in a twist because I didn’t support you very early on under this thread; but, I did so civilly unlike you!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Kenny: In and of itself, the photo isn’t incriminating; neither is his association with the Weathermen, but it’s just another brick in the wall, if you know what I mean.
I find it hypocritical that lefties regard reporting real news as “smear”, but when they put out fabricated stories about McCain and the President(phony National Guard story), it’s considered “real news”, and goes on and on in the MSM. In their topsy-turvy world, real news is “smear”(if it’s about a leftie) and real smear is “news”(if it’s about a Republican or conservative).

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Lestat, please cite specifically what provision of the constitution prevents a lawful investigation of a person’s meetings with others by congress or any government body.
DKK

Unless there is evidence of a crime, which should be investigated by local or federal prosecutors first; to engage in Congressional investigations of Obama’s free associations just to satisfy the blood lust of the Right is to stifle, to wet blanket anyone desiring the right of Free Assembly and Speech and that violates the Constitution.

Or, would you suggest that it is okay to investigate political candidates engaging in free assembly and speech without evidence or reasonable suspecian of a crime?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Lestat, please cite specifically what provision of the constitution prevents a lawful investigation of a person’s meetings with others by congress or any government body.

The first amendment would be constued that way.  For the government to investigate people for their legal associations would have a chilling effect on the right of free association.

he will still lie and defend his intimate Front Page bitch

Fuck you, you retarded twit.

Kenny: In and of itself, the photo isn’t incriminating; neither is his association with the Weathermen, but it’s just another brick in the wall, if you know what I mean.
I find it hypocritical that lefties regard reporting real news as “smear”, but when they put out fabricated stories about McCain and the President(phony National Guard story), it’s considered “real news”, and goes on and on in the MSM. In their topsy-turvy world, real news is “smear”(if it’s about a leftie) and real smear is “news”(if it’s about a Republican or conservative).

I don’t fault the media for investigating either one of these stories.  It is the Fourth Estates job to be a check on power.  But neither one of these stories has been substantiated enough to have been published.

You say that the Obama story is true.  What is true?

That he once went to a fundraising event where Ayers was present?  That he seved on the board of a charity with him?  That he went to a retirement party for somebody else where he was present?  That he was on a panel discussion with him?

Nothing in this is slightly nefarious.  Yet you are trying to make it so.  That is textbook smear.

Neiman, I am not here at your beck and call to answer your demands when you demand they be answered. Some of us have a life outside of blogging. You ought to try it.

1.  created a state earned income tax credit for poor people in Illinois; increase funding for health care in Illinois; increased funding for education in Illinois.

2.  He is of legal age as required by the US constitution.  He has been elected by the people of Illinois to the United States Senate.  He is well-educated, a Harvard Law Graduate.

3.  health care for all who want it.  Plan is available on his website. (look it up like I did.) Reform of NCLB (fully funding it as Bush said he would but didn’t) and getting the troops out of Iraq.
 
Now, I’m sure you’ll attack as usual but I’ve done my homework long before he won all these primaries. So take your righteous indignation and insulting comments about those that are supporting Obama and attack someone else.

Kenny: In and of itself, the photo isn’t incriminating; neither is his association with the Weathermen, but it’s just another brick in the wall, if you know what I mean.
I find it hypocritical that lefties regard reporting real news as “smear”, but when they put out fabricated stories about McCain and the President(phony National Guard story), it’s considered “real news”, and goes on and on in the MSM. In their topsy-turvy world, real news is “smear”(if it’s about a leftie) and real smear is “news”(if it’s about a Republican or conservative).

I must add that Rob did not suggest any crimes in his thread, he was simply saying a patern may exist of very unsavory associations. That was valid and informative as have been several intelligent responses.

I mentioned earlier that “smear” is an unfortunate tactic to end debate and while ‘smears’ do happen, more often than not it just involves information available that is being shared, and the blogger cannot conrol how people choose to react!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

andydakota

I’m sure you’ll attack as usual

When did I attack you, I was very kind to you!

I will let your answers sit for a while, I would like to see other responses!

McCracken:
As usual you have reached the end of your powerful vocabulary, although it is interesting you recognized my description of you though I didn’t use your name.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Go fuck yourself, Neiman.

Fuck you!

No thanks McCracken, even if you swing that way, which I suspect, I don’t! Further, you are sending mixed message pal, first calling me retarded and then suggetsing we engage in homosexual sexual relations. Which is it hate or physical love you are feeling for me? Hmmm?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Go fuck yourself, Neiman.

I am so impressed by your powerful vocabulary. I’ll bet you are a Pre-School graduate. However, little girl, what you are suggesting is physically, anatomically impossible, well unless McCracken is double jointed and speaking from personal experience!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

I must add that Rob did not suggest any crimes in his thread, he was simply saying a patern may exist of very unsavory associations. That was valid and informative as have been several intelligent responses.

That is a cop out.  He is publishing irresponsible reports and is using headlines that are irresponsible.  He is actively participating in this smear.

Lestat: Relax, I am on your side for the most part on this issue!

As I stated earlier, on at least two occasions: The story was already out there, Rob added a thread that suggested a possible pattern of behvior exists and that gave us a chance to get educated by both sides, if he hadn’t one of us would have picked it up and added it through a readers post; and as I said, I tend more to the idea this story is mucha ado about nothing!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman, I don’t know how much more insulting you can get when you write this: 

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.

It is insulting. Oh and gee thanks for letting my answers ‘set for a while’.  My answers won’t change the longer they set, Neiman.

...and getting the troops out of Iraq.

Translation: losing the war in Iraq by retreating from the terrorists.
I’m sure his agenda is shared by both the Weathermen and the Islamofascists.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

“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.”

WRONG

William Ayers is every bit as extreme as David Duke, maybe more. And unlike David Duke, Ayers actually engaged in terrorism. Ayers wife, Dohrn,  actually thought it was cool that the Manson Family stabbed the pregnant Sharon Tate in the stomach with a fork after killing her.

If John McCain or Mitt Romney appeared on a panel with David Duke, and became friends with David Duke, wouldn’t the American people be justifiably shocked.

If McCain associated with David Duke, and went to his home, it would be more than fair to bring that up. And you can bet you @$$ that it would be the number one media story from now until the 1st Tuesday in November. 

Is it somehow more acceptable to associate with a terrorist who wanted to overthrow the American government, create anarchy, burn down society, and replace it waith a totalitarian state?

Don’t forget, Ayers and Dohrn still think that they were justified to set bombs, and they think their followers were right to rob banks and murder a cop.

Dohrn and Ayers are as evil as Manson, and Barack chose to associate with them.

That he once went to a fundraising event where Ayers was present? That he seved on the board of a charity with him? That he went to a retirement party for somebody else where he was present? That he was on a panel discussion with him?  All of the above, combined with being their neighbors.

Nothing in this is slightly nefarious. I never said it was, only that it raises questions, when you consider his positions on Islamic terrorism. Yet you are trying to make it so. No, I’m not; another falsehood from you. That is textbook smear. Wrong again; it’s news, not smear.  Smear is making things up, like the McCain story and the Bush/National Guard story.

Once again, Lestat, you get your panties in a bunch over something you made up.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

If McCain associated with David Duke, and went to his home, it would be more than fair to bring that up. And you can bet you @$$ that it would be the number one media story from now until the 1st Tuesday in November.

You’re goddam right. And if that had happened, you know that the people in here shrugging off Obama’s terrorist problem would suddenly be less than charitable about it.

The Obama’ers have created a strawman in this debate.  It isn’t an implication of illegality or support for a terrorist, it is however a direct reflection of orthodoxy and questionable judgment outside the mainstream.
DKK

LifeTrek wrote:

The Obama’ers have created a strawman in this debate.  It isn’t an implication of illegality or support for a terrorist, it is however a direct reflection of orthodoxy and questionable judgment outside the mainstream.

Yep.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

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

It is a red herring to say that anyone is trying to paint Obama as a terrorist. It is fair game, however,  to question his judgment and question if he harbors any sympathies towards domestic terrorism before anyone gives him the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Yes Lestat, pay attention, if you respond rationally and civilly to a position offered by someone, especially by a Front Page Poster, Bat One will blindly defend them absent offering any facts whatsoever to support his attack, he’ll criticize you because he doesn’t like your tone, and even when you patiently detail why his observation was wrong, using exact quotations and diagramming the paragraph, he will still lie and defend his intimate Front Page bitch, because the facts and honesty are not part of his nature. He will even use it as a pretext to attack you or your children!

Go re-read the entire thread from last evening again, old man.  I pointed out the ridiculousness of your argument with Ken because he was NOT “promoting” what you accused him of, but rather pointing out the factual error is your own assertions.  The reality is you “proved” nothing more than your own foolishness.

At no point did I lie!  As you have now repeatedly accused me.  Nor did I attack you or your children.  On the contrary, both last night and previously, I was deeply solicitous of your loss, while also pointing out that you are not the only person here to have served in Vietnam, nor the only one to have lost someone close.

I was willing to forget about your lying nonsense yesterday.

More of your own lies, and this time all the more presumptuous.  The very first comment on my 650 Horsepower is No Crock post was your accusation that I am a liar.  The fact of the matter is that like those on the far left fringe, you are much more adept at throwing accusations about than you are at backing up those accusations.

So… what was the lie, Neiman?  As I suggested above, re-read the entire thread.  That is, if you can stand to revisit your own pointlessly stupid belligerence.  Put up or shut up, old man!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Proof:  I just got it!  Lestat, like most lefties, doesn’t care about Obama’s stance on terrorism, or about his judgment, or about anything other than the fact that he is a far left winger.  That is the only qualification that’s important to the lefties:  ideological affiliation.  All our talk about “passing a background check” is meaningless to these leftie partisans.  No wonder he doesn’t really understand our concerns.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Nieman and Lestat, I am not sure you two are correct.  To being you both missed the word lawful in my statement.  The first amendment in no way shape or form prevents a lawful investigation of a persons meetings or associations.

You can’t prohibit peaceable assembly or make participation in a lawful meeting illegal in DeJonge v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of an individual under a state criminal syndicalism law for participation in a Communist party political meeting. The Court writes that “peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed.”

However in a case deciding whether the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities’ inquiry into petitioner’s past or present membership in the Communist Party violated the First Amendment, Barenblatt v. United States, the Court states that, “where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown.” The Court concludes that the investigation is for a valid legislative purpose and that “investigatory power in this domain is not to be denied Congress solely because the field of education is involved.”

If they could investigate someone for HUAC would domestic terrorism be decided differently?

Now that doesn’t mean they will get any cooperation into their investigation, in NAACP v. Alabama, the Court states that the demand by Alabama officials for the NAACP to provide them a membership list violates members’ associational rights.

But the investigation itself wasn’t unconstitutional.
DKK

The Lie?
You backed up your pal’s lie, and then I showed you the exact paragraph he had used from the court decision, wherein he made key text in bold type face to highlight the words “International Law . . . and is the Supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, that is what I had claimed he had said all along, then he made that claim again in bold type that International Law was supreme over our Constitution and you said he did not say what he clearly said in bold type, he did so in a deliberately dishonest way I might add.

So, you said he did not claim International Law was supreme over the Constitution and was the supreme law of the land, when in the words he changed to bold type face he clearly make that exact claim, my charge would hold up in any court of law. So, you had documentary evidence from within his own comments that he was even then promoting the idea that International Law was the supreme over our Constitution and land, yet despite the evidence in front of your face you lied for him, you said he didn’t say something the bold type faced evidence proved he was in fact asserting.

Had you bothered to go up to my diagramming of the paragraph in question, it was obvious that the decision therein did not assert International Law was supreme over the Constitutrion, but that the Constitution then Federal laws and then international treaties entered into by the federal government were supreme over state courts and judges only!

Over and over again he said he was not asserting International Law was supreme over the Constitution and like in the paragraph I showed you, by using bold type face in a dishgonest way he reasserted that very thing over and over again, but despite the clear, documented evidence you still lied for him.

Worse, when you intimated I was wrong or lying, you did not provide one quotation from him that denied his assertion of International treaty dominance as the supreme law of our land, nor did you point out why I was wrong to use the paragraph in question to defend my position and point out his error. You just shouted down from Heaven and said I was wrong and falsely called me strident, when stridency must be verbal, not writen; but it does not matter because I was never strident, only determined to defend the truth to the bitter end.

You had no right getting involved in the conversation at that late point, unless you had clear evidence to prove my error and prove he was in the right and provided that evidence. Until you butted in to defend the indefensible, I was content to keep dissecting the various laws over and over until I proved he was wrong about International Law being the supreme law of the land, even to him; but you chose to make false accusations against me of being strident and you deliberately, with malice lied about his position on the matter, in my opinion.

Good enough answer for you?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

By the way batman, I had even much earlier offered him a chance to end the matter, when I said it was possible I had misunderstood his postion on an earlier thread and here on this subject; and should he state clearly he did not believe international law was the supreme law of the land, I would apologize for misreading his words and intentions and end the debate. You didn’t bother to read that one did you? Or a couple of other times when I made a similar offer? No! You chose for some reason of unreasoning bias to decide he was right and I was wrong absent any documented evidence whatsoever, it was just a blind defense of him and an unreasoning, insane attack upon me.

I chose to defend the Constitution over any other laws and I was willing to debate it ad naseum; but no matter what olive branches I offered him or how hard I diagrammed sentences and provided other evidence, he would deny making that claim and then reassert that claim over and over again.

Since you wanted to play referee or his lawyer, in pursuit of justice you should have carefully read every post first or butted out!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

LifeTrek: Very educational, thank you! I’ll have to digest it more, but you made some very good points.

I think that the existence of a Democrat Congress kind of makes the point moot, since I cannot see them investigating him.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Bat One: As it is getting late, I will have to read any response tomorrow. I always respected you until this event, you not only refused to accept the documentary evidence in front of you, you said you had judged me wrong and also accused me of stridency, when I was soley defending my long stated position against his continual saying one thing, retracting it and then saying the same thing again, just in a different way.

Had you left it alone and allowed us to fight it out, I would have had a respect for you that no longer exists. The friends of my enemies are also my enemies!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago