William Ayers dedicated book to Sirhan Sirhan

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Shooter

Shooter

Unanimously Great
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
5,484
Likes
152
Points
63
Obama's buddy William Ayers wrote a book in 1974 which he dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, the man who assassinated Robert Kennedy. Here's a quote from Pat Caddell, Democrat:

Well, for me, personally, Ayers is a real problem. I'm shocked at this thing about Sirhan Sirhan. Robert Kennedy was my political hero as he was to many people. He -- this is the 40th year since his assassination. That changed America. Ayers is out there bombing people.

I really don't understand what our problem is in denouncing him . . .
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445556,00.html

Again, these are the kinds of people that Obama associates with: Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, Franklin Marshall Davis--all radical extremists who hate America. Does this give any of you Obama supporters even a shred of doubt about the guy?? Any at all . . . ? Even a little? A little tiny bit of doubt? I sure hope so.
 
Dumpy said:
None at all.
Click to expand...
Why in the hell not? If McCain had been hanging out with members of the KKK for years, wouldn't that be relevant? Wouldn't it tell us something about the way his mind works, and his values? I can't believe that you think Obama's many extremely radical associates don't matter, unless you yourself are a Marxist and hate America. If that is true, then I guess there's no point in arguing. Is it true?
 
Shooter said:
Why in the hell not? If McCain had been hanging out with members of the KKK for years, wouldn't that be relevant? Wouldn't it tell us something about the way his mind works, and his values? I can't believe that you think Obama's many extremely radical associates don't matter, unless you yourself are a Marxist and hate America. If that is true, then I guess there's no point in arguing. Is it true?
Click to expand...

McCain hung out with Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd. Who cares. If he was a MEMBER of a segregationist group or the KKK, that would be different. Politicians interact with many, many, MANY people.
 
Do you care about Palin's relationship with that Alaska segregationist group?
 
Dumpy said:
Do you care about Palin's relationship with that Alaska segregationist group?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I had thought Alaska segregationist was a bit of a redundant term.
 
julius said:
How is that any different than iron cold guilt by association?
Click to expand...

Because if I had to choose being tied to the AIP or Bill Ayres, it's not even close. Anyone who thinks they're equivalent simply isn't paying attention.
 
maxiep said:
You're not participating. You're choosing not to address the subject matter at hand.
Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about "moral equivalence" of anything. I simply asked a question.
 
maxiep said:
Because if I had to choose being tied to the AIP or Bill Ayres, it's not even close. Anyone who thinks they're equivalent simply isn't paying attention.
Click to expand...

Guilt by association, and moral equivalence are poorly thought out arguments that tend to be done lazily. Instead of debating the issues that people who are losing their houses or jobs (two topics that are more important) care about, they bring up pretty weak connections between both candidates and people that have at best, a slight connection to them. And then they try to act like one guy doing something is the same as the other guy doing something (these two arguments seem to be married).

Debate the issues, and not these stupid pointless accusations made by people who just receive emails and spew them out without actually knowing anything about it.
 
Dumpy said:
McCain hung out with Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd. Who cares. If he was a MEMBER of a segregationist group or the KKK, that would be different. Politicians interact with many, many, MANY people.
Click to expand...
Yes, and most of the people Obama interacts with seem to hate this country. I find that very significant. I also find it significant that a respected Democrat like Pat Caddell is "shocked" by the Sirhan Sirhan dedication. I guess there are fewer and fewer Democrats like him who have a conscience.

I will say this again, for the thousandth time. If McCain had been hanging around with unsavory types like Obama had, the press wold be crucifying him and liberals would be foaming at the mouth. But since it's their "savior" who has all of these radical associates, they are blithely looking the other way and pretending none of it matters.
 
Last edited:
In my view, while these association issues are relevant to the issue of character and do influence my vote, I think the McCain campaign's strategy of trying to make this the predominate issue against Obama is a pure loser. Guilt by association isn't going to trump the economy or national security.
 
Dumpy said:
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about "moral equivalence" of anything. I simply asked a question.
Click to expand...

Of course, because it's easier than actually adressing the issue.
 
I don't see a huge connection between Obama and Ayers. There's nothing to imply that Obama shares Ayer's views. I've been on committees with people who I disagree with as, I assume, has John McCain.

Now, it'd be different if Obama decided to attend the bomb throwers convention... or a few alaska radical conventions...
 
Shooter said:
Yes, and most of the people Obama interacts with seem to hate this country. I find that very significant. I also find it significant that a respected Democrat like Pat Caddell is "shocked" by the Sirhan Sirhan dedication. I guess there are fewer and fewer Democrats like him who have a conscience.
Click to expand...

This seems to be how your logic train works.

Obama interacts with people who hate the country.

Obama interacted with McCain and Joe Lieberman.

Therefore, by the Shooter theory, McCain and Lieberman hate this country.

Obama interacts with people who hate the country.

Obama interacted with Colin Powell, Warren Buffet and Bill Richardson.

Therefore, by the Shooter theory, Powell, Buffet and Richardson hate this country.

Impeccable logic.
 
THIS is the thread I think finally did it...Im voting for McCain!
 
julius said:
Guilt by association, and moral equivalence are poorly thought out arguments that tend to be done lazily. Instead of debating the issues that people who are losing their houses or jobs (two topics that are more important) care about, they bring up pretty weak connections between both candidates and people that have at best, a slight connection to them. And then they try to act like one guy doing something is the same as the other guy doing something (these two arguments seem to be married).

Debate the issues, and not these stupid pointless accusations made by people who just receive emails and spew them out without actually knowing anything about it.
Click to expand...

We can talk about those issues. However, this thread is about the people with whom Barack Obama chooses to associate.
 
but as far as "moral equivalence" goes, I can see why people would prefer we debate the attack on Obama w/o mentioning anything about McCain and Palin- there's so much more to say about them!

since you like speaking in academic english- how about another term- zero sum game. Assuming the point of political discussion is to decide who to vote for- i.e. only one ticket wins- then it's fair to air out the issues on both sides. It's completely fair to point out Palin's crazy associations if you are talking about Obamas.
 
anonymous gambler said:
There's nothing to imply that Obama shares Ayer's views.
Click to expand...
Excuse me??

Where in the hell have you been? Obama attended a church with a radical, anti-American pastor for 20 years. He is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, a marxist who wrote the book, "Rules for Radicals." He supports the candidacy of a Marxist in Kenya. He was mentored by a communist in Hawaii during his youth. And he gave a glowing endorsement of one of Ayers' books. Everything that we know about Obama suggests that he shares Ayers' views.

Do you guys just pretend to be naive, or what? This is getting ridiculous. I think I could stand you in front of a red barn and you would deny it was red.
 
Last edited:
anonymous gambler said:
but as far as "moral equivalence" goes, I can see why people would prefer we debate the attack on Obama w/o mentioning anything about McCain and Palin- there's so much more to say about them!
Click to expand...

If the thread were titled something like "crazy associations", we could discuss both. However, this is about Bill Ayers and Sirhan Sirhan--a guy who is probably not a friend of either Ted Kennedy (who endorsed Obama) or Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (who chaired his VP search committee). You don't think they'd be offended by a friend of Obama's dedicating a book to someone who murdered a member of their family?

Saying that the AIP is anywhere on the same level as that piece of human filth is a ridiculous statement and deserves to be called out.

BTW, what would you like to say about Gov. Palin's or Sen. McCain's "crazy associations"? Which one had a 20 year relationship with a preacher who hates this country. Which one has a friend who has bombed this country and takes pride in it?

anonymous gambler said:
since you like speaking in academic english- how about another term- zero sum game. Assuming the point of political discussion is to decide who to vote for- i.e. only one ticket wins- then it's fair to air out the issues on both sides. It's completely fair to point out Palin's crazy associations if you are talking about Obamas.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Create a thread on Sarah Palin's relationship with the AIP, and I'll be happy to discuss it.
 
maxiep said:
We can talk about those issues. However, this thread is about the people with whom Barack Obama chooses to associate.
Click to expand...

So back to my guilt by association comment. It's a lazy kind of argument, made by people who are desperate to try to scare people into voting for one candidate and not the other. Sorry if I don't want to play this game of "boo!" game under the same rules you think apply here.

It was the same when people (on the left) would point out the picture of Rumsfeld with Hussein back from the 80's.

Kind of like how Palin has charged Obama with palling with Rashid Khalidi, when McCain was in charge of a group that gave a lot of money to him.

Obviously it must mean that McCain 100% supports Khalidi because he gave him almost 500K, right?

If we're going to play the guilt by association game, it goes both ways.

But why play it? Why not stick to the issues instead of scaring people into voting for one candidate vs the other?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top