William Ayers dedicated book to Sirhan Sirhan

[DaRizzle]

How's that Kool-Aid taste? Have another cup, my friend.

Oh I love this Kool-Aid!

It has vitamins and minerals that make me grow up big, strong, Marxist, gay, unarmed, use rich peoples money, and attacked by muslims....YUMMY!!!!

 

[Shooter]

 

[maxiep]

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 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?

When you don't know someone, and they continue to not be open about their background, you have to see with whom they choose to surround themselves. And are you really equating a diplomatic visit and a group giving money to another group as being the same thing as having a personal relationship with a person? Are you really that desperate to show both sides are guilty therefore we shouldn't address the issue?

The bottom line is that if Barack Obama wasn't trying to hide who he was (and did a better job of concealing it), the questions would stop. Until that point, the associations are going to continue to be an issue.

 

[julius]

When you don't know someone, and they continue to not be open about their background, you have to see with whom they choose to surround themselves.

true. And the arguments about Palin where they're based on GBA, are pretty pathetic.

And are you really equating a diplomatic visit and a group giving money to another group as being the same thing as having a personal relationship with a person?

Did you miss my point in bringing up the meeting with Rumsfeld and Hussein? It was a poor argument then, because it's "guilt by association" that the left tried to use. Guilt by association is a lazy mans argument.

Are you really that desperate to show both sides are guilty therefore we shouldn't address the issue?

I'm "desperate" to show that people should try arguing about the issues, and not paper thin connections between people, done SOLELY to scare people into voting for the white guy.

Don't like his tax issues, fine. Don't like stance on the war in Iraq? Fine.

But don't like how a guy who he's had (at best) minimal contact with was a complete moron 40 years ago? Because if thats what you want to use in your argument, I'll just counter by saying I don't like how McCain has had maximum contact with a complete moron....*today* (that being Bush).

But if it makes people feel better to give themselves a reason not to vote for Obama, that he's a "socialist" or a "marxist" or a "America hating liberal/terrorist/muslim", whatever. It just seems to be kind of a dumb stance to make.

The bottom line is that if Barack Obama wasn't trying to hide who he was (and did a better job of concealing it), the questions would stop. Until that point, the associations are going to continue to be an issue.

How is he hiding? We're in the 21st century. Google is one the best search engines there is (actually, it's not, but that's besides the point). If we can find stuff about how McCain gave money to Khalidi almost 20 years ago, and find it easily I might add, we could also find these "links" that you and the others are convinced are sure to exist.

 

[maxiep]

true. And the arguments about Palin where they're based on GBA, are pretty pathetic.


Did you miss my point in bringing up the meeting with Rumsfeld and Hussein? It was a poor argument then, because it's "guilt by association" that the left tried to use. Guilt by association is a lazy mans argument.

No, I got it the first time. The point you blew by is when you have precious little else to go on, guilt by association is not a "lazy man's argument", it's a tool to try to understand the mind of someone bent on obscuring who they really are.

Also, there are degrees of association. Some are six degrees of Kevin Bacon and some are deep and influential.

I'm "desperate" to show that people should try arguing about the issues, and not paper thin connections between people, done SOLELY to scare people into voting for the white guy.

Ah, the old canard of race. Of course it's about white vs. black. After all, it just HAS to be about the mandingo issue. I guess Bill Clinton really was a racist when Hillary ran against Obama. Talk about a scare tactic. "Oh, you don't support Obama? You must be a racist."

Don't like his tax issues, fine. Don't like stance on the war in Iraq? Fine.

But don't like how a guy who he's had (at best) minimal contact with was a complete moron 40 years ago? Because if thats what you want to use in your argument, I'll just counter by saying I don't like how McCain has had maximum contact with a complete moron....*today* (that being Bush).

He hasn't had minimal contact with Bill Ayers. He wasn't "some guy in the neighborhood". He knew him at Columbia. He knew him in Hyde Park. He attended parties with him. He held one of his first fundraisers at his house. He wasn't just some guy he occasionally saw at the Co-op or Medici's.

I used to live at 55th and Dorchester, and Bill Ayers was more than "some guy in the neighborhood". Everyone knew damn well who he was. He was a domestic terrorist who got off from a murder rap on a technicality who proclaimed "guilty as hell, free as a bird...what a country". For all of his attempts at rehabilitation by becoming an academic, he still hasn't repented for his past actions.

But if it makes people feel better to give themselves a reason not to vote for Obama, that he's a "socialist" or a "marxist" or a "America hating liberal/terrorist/muslim", whatever. It just seems to be kind of a dumb stance to make.

How is his political ideology a "dumb stance to make"? I can't think of a more important reason to vote for or against someone for President than their ideology.

How is he hiding? We're in the 21st century. Google is one the best search engines there is (actually, it's not, but that's besides the point). If we can find stuff about how McCain gave money to Khalidi almost 20 years ago, and find it easily I might add, we could also find these "links" that you and the others are convinced are sure to exist.

I guess that's why Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw--two people who have spent a lot more time and effort than the average voter trying to get to know Sen. Obama--both admitted they really don't know who he is or what is his worldview.

Not everything is in print. Not everything is available for public consumption. At some point in time, you have to discuss what changed you, what made you the person you are, what your vision is beyond "hope" and "change". He'll say one thing to the Palestinians and another to the Israelis. He'll say one thing to people in Pennsylvania, and then say something different to people in San Francisco. We don't know what he really thinks. However, it seems the more we hear when he lets his guard down, the more radical the vision becomes.

 

[Dumpy]

Then why bother to make post after post about something you don't care about?

because I am polite enough to respond when someone, such as you, asks me a direct question. I also try to respond respectfully at all times.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Yes, and most of the people Obama interacts with seem to hate this country. I find that very significant.

No, you find it significant that most of the people that Obama has interacted with in the past that the media has cherrypicked happen to disagree with your worldview.

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.

No, there are fewer and fewer people in general talking about Bill Ayers and who he dedicates his books to because fewer and fewer people give a flying fuck. Keep on beating that dead horse all by yourself.

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.

No, they wouldn't. He's a war hero, and it's off limits to judge his character. Hell, he called Cindy a cunt and no one ever mentions that. Imagine if Obama had done that?

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.

For the record, its you people that called him our savior, not us.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

None of these people has expressed hate for "America".

A couple have at times expressed hate for treasonous elements of our government.

George Bush is not America.

Dick Cheney is not America.

 

[MARIS61]

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?

Well, McCain did donate nearly $500,000 to Khalid so don't you think that's relevant? Doesn't it tell you something about the way his mind works, and his values?

 

[MARIS61]

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.

Agreed.

Ayers is a Patriot compared to those anti-American traitors.

 

[MARIS61]

I presume you mean "secessionist group"? There is a difference, you know.

In this case, as in the Civil War, they go hand in hand.

 

[44Thrilla]

He doesn't wear a flag pin, either.

 

[MARIS61]

I also find it significant that a respected Democrat like Pat Caddell is "shocked" by the Sirhan Sirhan dedication.

Respected? By whom?

Pat Caddell is no more of a Democrat than you are. He's a right-leaning gun-for-hire, who has made a comfortable living by pretending to be shocked by "his fellow Democrats" for nearly a decade now.

For the right price, he'll say anything you want.

Here's a bit of background on him.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409160005?src=item200702260002
















His analysis on polls and campaign issues often puts him at odds with the current leadership of the Democratic Party. He has been criticized as often attacking Democratic politicians and predicting the downfall of the Democratic party.[5] Critics point out that he has defended the Bush administration by claiming that Republicans did not exploit the issue of gay marriage in the presidential election of 2004. He also referred to Democrats in the House who voted against the Palm Sunday Compromise, which sought to reinstate Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, as "cold blooded" and denounced them.

 

[MARIS61]

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?

Since both have worked their asses off for and given their wholehearted support for Obama, no, I don't think they give a rat's ass about Ayers, who is not a friend of Obama.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

IF, and that's a big if, Sirhan Sirhan wasn't just a pawn for right-wingers, in his mind he was defending Israel.

The AIP are traitors who hate America, deny they are part of America, and thumb their noses at any and all laws of America.

If they ever get big enough to be taken seriously as a threat to America I expect America will kill or imprison them, and rightly so.

 

[MARIS61]

When you don't know someone, and they continue to not be open about their background, you have to see with whom they choose to surround themselves. And are you really equating a diplomatic visit and a group giving money to another group as being the same thing as having a personal relationship with a person? Are you really that desperate to show both sides are guilty therefore we shouldn't address the issue?

The bottom line is that if Barack Obama wasn't trying to hide who he was (and did a better job of concealing it), the questions would stop. Until that point, the associations are going to continue to be an issue.

Nonsense.

Obama is the most open book I've ever come across in politics. In fact, he wrote a couple books.

McCain, on the other hand, has told me next to nothing about himself in any of his many campaigns, other than gross distortions about him being a "Maverick" and shamelessly milking the happenstance that he was a POW.

Everything Palin has said about herself has already been proven to be lies, even being a hockey mom.

 

[MARIS61]

The point you blew by is when you have precious little else to go on, guilt by association is not a "lazy man's argument", it's a tool to try to understand the mind of someone bent on obscuring who they really are.

It's an idiot's diversion, and the weakest weapon one can hold in any debate.

The wider one's associations are, the fuller one's understanding is.

I'll associate with practically anyone.

I'm very interested in people and how their minds work, or in many cases, malfunction.

 

[PapaG]

For the 10th time, the New York Times retracted their front-page smear on Palin and the AIP.

Stay ignorant, whoever it was that posted about it.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...a-member/?scp=2&sq=alaska independence&st=cse

The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the state’s secession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.

A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990’s.

The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify. The McCain campaign also disputed the Times report, saying that Ms. Palin had been registered consistently as a Republican.

 

[PapaG]

Obama is the most open book I've ever come across in politics. In fact, he wrote a couple books.

McCain, on the other hand, has told me next to nothing about himself in any of his many campaigns, other than gross distortions about him being a "Maverick" and shamelessly milking the happenstance that he was a POW.

Everything Palin has said about herself has already been proven to be lies, even being a hockey mom.

I hope this is all a joke. If not, you have a lot of hatred in you.

 

[PapaG]

One more thing on Obama writing two books about himself.

Why does he need to write two books about himself before the age of 45.

What had he accomplished to get an advance for two books, one of which was in 1995? Who is backing this guy?