The Ayers thread

[jrrtoken]

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

I'd love to see the proof for your opinion, especially when it's based on nothing. Everything that I've seen implies that Obama has had little to do with Blagojevich, even Blagojevich himself said that Obama wouldn't cooperate with anything of the sort in the wiretaps.

 

Oh yes, there's something else that is wrong with your statement. Blagojevich is the governor of Illinois. If you don't remember, Chicago is a city in Illinois.

 

 

 

See?

[The Doctor]

Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

We've proven you wrong on every one of those points many times before. If you're not going to come up with some new "evidence" that isn't clearly biased or simply false, I implore you to at least grow more creative in your attempts to smear the President-elect.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, Ayers came out after the election and said in an interview that he was indeed friends with Obama. Obama did also work for ACORN, but there is no link between his work and the voter registration fraud that has been a problem in this organization. Obama buying a house via a sweet deal with Rezko is also a matter of record, and Rezko had donated to Obama's campaign, but Obama donated all the Rezko funds to charity and disassociated himself from Rezko when he found out about Rezko's indictment. I'm sure if Gov. Rod donated anything to Obama's campaign, those funds will likewise be donated to charity. I'm not sure how much dealings Rod had with Obama, to be honest. I'm sure they had some interaction since Obama was a state senator and then IL senator, but it doesn't sound like Rod wanted anything to do with anyone who wasn't going to grease his wheels.

[The Doctor]

Sorry Jae, but Obama has condemned Ayers' past actions, and does not have a personal relationship with Bill Ayers.

 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1

http://m.cnn.com/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/178228

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/22/parsing-the-ayers-allegation.aspx

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/06/politics/main4503380.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/Story?id=5667094&page=1

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/11/mr-ayerss-neighborhood.html?yrail

 

That last one contains the following quote:

“I think my relationship with Obama was probably like that of thousands of others in Chicago and, like millions and millions of others, I wished I knew him better.”

 

Barack Obama does not have, nor has he ever had, any form of personal relationship with Bill Ayers. Both Obama and Ayers have stated as much.

[GarfieldJL]

Actually, Ayers came out after the election and said in an interview that he was indeed friends with Obama.

 

Something, Sean Hannity had been saying for months. Oh and there is some more stuff that has come out concerning the media and Bill Ayers as an aside.

Newsbusters story concerning Chris Matthews' interview with Bill Ayers.

 

Obama did also work for ACORN, but there is no link between his work and the voter registration fraud that has been a problem in this organization.

 

Actually he was running their Project Vote, so voter fraud would have been happening under his watch. He also funnelled tons of money to ACORN.

 

Obama buying a house via a sweet deal with Rezko is also a matter of record, and Rezko had donated to Obama's campaign, but Obama donated all the Rezko funds to charity and disassociated himself from Rezko when he found out about Rezko's indictment.

 

Also turns out that the Real-estate agent involved is the wife of the Illinois Governor that is currently under inditement. Really, he only donated those funds to charity cause he got caught, seriously if Obama didn't know what was going on, then he makes Bush look like a genius.

 

I'm sure if Gov. Rod donated anything to Obama's campaign, those funds will likewise be donated to charity. I'm not sure how much dealings Rod had with Obama, to be honest. I'm sure they had some interaction since Obama was a state senator and then IL senator, but it doesn't sound like Rod wanted anything to do with anyone who wasn't going to grease his wheels.

 

Donating funds to charity? Seriously, the donating is a moot point because it was already used to buy the Presidency. Obama's campaign spent more money than Bush and Kerry did combined.

 

Also some of the conservative blogs are now out and out accusing certain media outlets of deliberately trying to cover up news stories that they had printed, because they show Obama to be lieing.

KHQA Renounces its Nov 5th Story Reported Obama Blago Meeting Fact Nov 8th

 

Uh, The Doctor, while I applaud you taking the time to do research, there are some pretty serious accusations concerning the credibility of pretty much all of the news sites you are quoting. There is a reason why the New York Times is in danger of going bankrupt.

[The Doctor]

Uh, The Doctor, while I applaud you taking the time to do research, there are some pretty serious accusations concerning the credibility of pretty much all of the news sites you are quoting. There is a reason why the New York Times is in danger of going bankrupt.

 

That's also been discussed countless times - if you insist that your Republican bloggers are reliable sources, than I will continue to reference these news sources despite your insistence of "serious accusations concerning their credibility".

[GarfieldJL]

That's also been discussed countless times - if you insist that your Republican bloggers are reliable sources, than I will continue to reference these news sources despite your insistence of "serious accusations concerning their credibility".

 

They are reliable when they provide sources (such as tapes), links to the News Media's own websites, etc. If they manage to back up what they state, then I would consider them to be credible. Whereas, a News Agency claiming an anonymous source told them such and such and the story turns out to be bogus isn't remotely reliable.

[The Doctor]

Good to know that named campaign aids and Ayers himself are now considered anonymous sources.

[EnderWiggin]

Actually he was running their Project Vote, so voter fraud would have been happening under his watch.

 

Neither Bill O nor Sean Hannity think this, I know because I watch FOXNews.

 

You are making unsubstantiated claims that are blatantly false just to stir up trouble.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Good to know that named campaign aids and Ayers himself are now considered anonymous sources.

 

You mean to tell me that Bill Ayers has any credibility whatsoever? I wasn't born yesterday.

 

Neither Bill O nor Sean Hannity think this, I know because I watch FOXNews.

 

You are making unsubstantiated claims that are blatantly false just to stir up trouble.

 

_EW_

 

I'm not making any unsubstianciated claims, I hope the articles are still online when I actually have time to find them again, I don't make idle accusations.

 

And by the way Sean did point this stuff out, he did it repeatedly, so you apparently weren't watching Hannity & Colmes those days.

[The Doctor]

When what he says is confirmed from multiple sources, I'm inclined to believe him. Especially since the questionable acts of his past occurred about 40 years ago.

 

@ E_W: It's especially aggravating when it's the same blatantly false claims over and over again, isn't it?

[Adavardes]

Sorry, but that's the definition of what you're doing.

 

_EW_

 

Don't forget ignoring sources and proof just as valid as this newsbuster blog, or Fox News, if not moreso, simply because it contradicts what he's saying. I've been reading your debates for a while now, Garfield, and, I mean, your claims against Obama are both clearly and overwhelmingly proven to be falsified time and time again, and instead of learning anything from this, you pretend it's completely invalid for vaguely explained reasons and plow on.

 

To keep this on topic, I think Doc did everything I ever could to disprove Obama's ties to Ayers, ACORN, or any other disreputable person and/or group of people used in the smear campaigns against him. It's getting so tired and pointless, it's borderline humiliating to those still trying to perpetuate it. It's in my personal experience that a losing party's rhetoric is always desperate and irrational after a loss like this, but it just needs to stop. Obama is the next president of the United States. Let him prove himself with time and effort before attempting to judge him any further, especially when such judging is being done unfairly with falsified information.

 

And, by the way, Ayers does deserve credibility. He's an English professor at Chicago University and a politically active citizen that happens to be well thought of amongst those that actually know him. In all reality, he was a teenager in the 60s who took his hair-brained and probably drug-induced ideologies against the government to an extreme, something that was a mistake, but still is a mistake that happened 40 years ago, when many of the people his age were doing stupid things as well. The conservatives have taken that past and blown it way, WAY out of proportion with calling him a terrorist.

[Adavardes]

@ The Doctor:

Transcript of the Good morning American interview. However Ayers wants to characterize it and dodge it with careful language, he was friends with Obama, and denying that is unwise. The more important question is how much influence Ayers' ideas on activism and education have on Obama policies. I'm going to assume Ayers isn't giving Obama tips on how to bomb the Pentagon, however.

 

This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, simply because he knows a man that lives in his neighborhood (a man I still very much doubt he knew as well as many claim), and that man happened to do something somewhat considered domestic terrorism in a questionable and more than likely drug-induced state of mind forty years ago? How does that at all make sense?

 

Let's pretend that Obama is friends with Ayers, even though I haven't seen any solid proof to support such a claim. People are much less influenced by their acquaintences than is clearly thought in this debate. It's a little something called individuality. Just because you're friends with someone does not mean that you share their ideas, or that they somehow hold sway over the way you think. Maybe those of you arguing this point are just unfamiliar with a lack of conformism, or just have no minds of your own. I don't know, but Ayers, ACORN, and whoever else you keep throwing around are not Obama.

 

End. of. story.

[The Doctor]

@ The Doctor:

Transcript of the Good morning American interview. However Ayers wants to characterize it and dodge it with careful language, he was friends with Obama, and denying that is unwise. The more important question is how much influence Ayers' ideas on activism and education have on Obama policies. I'm going to assume Ayers isn't giving Obama tips on how to bomb the Pentagon, however.

 

On the contrary, Jae, I think it's the height of ignorance to assume that simply because they've interacted, they're suddenly friends. They're not friends any more than I am with the girl up the street who I sat next to in Grade 9 French class, or the guy around the corner who I sat next to in Jazz band for 3 years. Just because I know them, and have shared idle chat with them, doesn't mean they have any influence whatsoever on what I believe, or how I stand on any issue.

 

Had Obama and Ayers pursued a relationship beyond a working environment, I might be more inclined to believe that they were true "friends". But judging from what I've seen, there is no evidence to support the claim that they shared any kind of relationship beyond a business acquaintanceship. There are literally thousands of people who Obama has had the same kind of relationship with, and none of them have had their pasts and relationships with Barack exaggerated by the wrong- right-wing.

 

Besides, just like Addy said: even if they are friends (which they're not, fyi), that in no way means that Obama approves of Ayers' past actions. He's even said as much. He's condemned Ayers' past actions, and has shown no evidence that could lead anyone but the most desperate of self-deluded conservative smear artists to believe that he has any sort of terrorist agenda or ideals.

 

This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.

[GarfieldJL]

This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, simply because he knows a man that lives in his neighborhood (a man I still very much doubt he knew as well as many claim), and that man happened to do something somewhat considered domestic terrorism in a questionable and more than likely drug-induced state of mind forty years ago? How does that at all make sense?

 

Don't give me that media song and dance, Obama started his State Senate campaign in Bill Ayer's house for goodness sakes, he worked for Bill Ayers, and Bill Ayer's wife along with Ayers introduced Obama to his wife. This is a heck of a lot more than just some guy in his neighborhood.

 

Let's pretend that Obama is friends with Ayers, even though I haven't seen any solid proof to support such a claim.

 

Try the fact that Obama funnelled money to Ayers' projects to indoctrinate children into left-wing radicalism.

 

People are much less influenced by their acquaintences than is clearly thought in this debate. It's a little something called individuality. Just because you're friends with someone does not mean that you share their ideas, or that they somehow hold sway over the way you think. Maybe those of you arguing this point are just unfamiliar with a lack of conformism, or just have no minds of your own. I don't know, but Ayers, ACORN, and whoever else you keep throwing around are not Obama.

 

How many friends does it take before it becomes a pattern? How many interconnecting associations does it take before its more than coincidence? This isn't a Republican hit job like the mainstream media would like people to believe. I really find your comments that conservatives don't know what they're talking about to be highly insulting. If he just was associated with Ayers, it would raise a few eyebrows but it wouldn't be that big of a deal, fact is he isn't just associated with Ayers.

 

Saul Allinsky, Bill Ayers, ACORN, Ahenberg Project. That's 4 bad associations that begin with the letter 'A' that I can name off the top of my head. Everyone may have one or two bad associations, but not so many that there are 4 that begin with the letter 'A'.

 

This isn't including: Rezko, the Governor of Illinois, the Governor's wife, Rev. Wright, Rev. Moss, Pastor Pfleger, etc.

 

We're not talking one or two bad associations here, we're talking about enough to fill at least a large school bus.

 

End. of. story.

 

On the contrary, assuming I have time to sit down and seriously talk about this, I'm just getting warmed up.

 

This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.

 

Last I checked Hippies didn't bomb police stations, try to kill a Judge and his family (which included young children), not to mention the guy is only sorry that he didn't set more bombs and didn't think he was violent enough.

 

I'm not going into the bad associations that are family, because he doesn't have a choice in that regard, he chose to associate with an unrepentant terrorist.

[Achilles]

This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, simply because he knows a man that lives in his neighborhood (a man I still very much doubt he knew as well as many claim), and that man happened to do something somewhat considered domestic terrorism in a questionable and more than likely drug-induced state of mind forty years ago? How does that at all make sense?

 

Let's pretend that Obama is friends with Ayers, even though I haven't seen any solid proof to support such a claim. People are much less influenced by their acquaintences than is clearly thought in this debate. It's a little something called individuality. Just because you're friends with someone does not mean that you share their ideas, or that they somehow hold sway over the way you think. Maybe those of you arguing this point are just unfamiliar with a lack of conformism, or just have no minds of your own. I don't know, but Ayers, ACORN, and whoever else you keep throwing around are not Obama.

 

End. of. story.

Quoting all of this for truth and emphasis and adding the part where I ask all the Ayers conspiracy supporters to ask themselves how many of them vet every single person they associate with on the off chance that it might hurt their campaign...should they decide to run for President a decade or more from now. Next time you go to work, look around and ask yourself how much you really know about those around you. Dirty secrets? Past associations? If the answer is "not much" then it would seem that you're holding Obama to some bizarre standard that it hasn't even occurred to you to hold yourself to.

 

Oh, and if you decide to begin holding yourself to that standard, ask yourself how much info your co-workers are going to give you just because you ask.

 

"Hey, Bob, I know this might sound a little strange, but I was just kinda wondering if you've ever been convicted of a felony, practice any kind of sexual deviation, or have associated with any domestic terrorist organizations in the past"

 

"Wow! You must be new around here. I thought they covered my 7 DUIs, chicken fetish, and participation in the Oklahoma City bombing in new hire orientation. Wait till you get a load of the holiday party. *Whispers* The boss drags out his pron collection and tells the story about the first time he ever tried on women's underwear. It's a classic!".

[GarfieldJL]

Quoting all of this for truth and emphasis and adding the part where I ask all the Ayers conspiracy supporters to ask themselves how many of them vet every single person they associate with on the off chance that it might hurt their campaign...should they decide to run for President a decade or more from now. Next time you go to work, look around and ask yourself how much you really know about those around you. Dirty secrets? Past associations? If the answer is "not much" then it would seem that you're holding Obama to some bizarre standard that it hasn't even occurred to you to hold yourself to.

 

Have you even read what people have posted?

 

1 or 2 associations, okay, 3 or 4 cause for concern, at least 10-20 and they interconnect is downright scary. And Obama ranks in the least 10-20.

 

Oh, and if you decide to begin holding yourself to that standard, ask yourself how much info your co-workers are going to give you just because you ask.

 

Last I checked none of my co-workers bombed the Pentagon, the US capital building, and New York City Police Headquarters.

 

"Hey, Bob, I know this might sound a little strange, but I was just kinda wondering if you've ever been convicted of a felony, practice any kind of sexual deviation, or have associated with any domestic terrorist organizations in the past"

 

Again we have an unrepentent terrorist that brags about what he did.

 

"Wow! You must be new around here. I thought they covered my 7 DUIs, chicken fetishes, and participation in the Oklahoma City bombing in new hire orientation. Wait till you get a load of the holiday party. *Whispers* The boss drags out his pron collection and tells the story about the first time he ever tried on women's underwear. It's a classic!".

 

I don't know where you're working at, the worst thing a co-worker has done is get a DUI, least where I work at. Seriously, DUI's, Chicken whatever, and the boss having a collection of magazines, doesn't concern me. It's the one that is a terrorist that concerns me.

[Adavardes]

Have you even read what people have posted?

 

1 or 2 associations, okay, 3 or 4 cause for concern, at least 10-20 and they interconnect is downright scary. And Obama ranks in the least 10-20.

 

You mean 10-20 falsified relationships with individuals he may or may not know. Truth is, you have no real evidence to support these claims, except perhaps for the sources you constantly use, which, by the way, are so steeped in conservative bias that their "truth" is little more than invented nonsense. You tell me to give up that media song and dance, how about you step out from behind your wall of factual neglect and things that Fox News tells you and take a look at some real facts. That you're searching for significant connections that don't exist beyond scenarios that Doctor and Achilles have outlined, or just simply aren't real, to stir up an unfounded distrust in the man that is going to lead you for the next four years, whether you like it or not. Ayers is a respectable man who has not commited a major felony since his actions, which were probably not his best moments, forty years ago. He is not an unrepentant terrorist, and I would gladly take his "left-wing radicalism" before I listen to anymore of your right-wing radicalism based solely on ignorance and the blind accusations of terrorism that have no substance whatsoever.

 

By the way, I'm pretty sure I've been introduced to a lot of people in my neighborhood, and met a lot of individuals at parties and around my place of employ that I don't know from Adam. There are people I have been around in school and in get-togethers by proxy of friends alone that I could tell you nothing about, which includes their religious preferences, their political polarity, and their opinions on the elections. So, for some reason, you seem to think that just because Obama is going to be the new president of the United States, you can be totally irrational about similar connections he has in his life, and claim they are something more?

 

Oh, and I'd love to hear what you have to say about EnderWiggin calling you out on outright lying about what O'Reilly and Hannity have said on this issue earlier, as you seem to have pulled a Palin and shifted right around that.

[GarfieldJL]

Alright, I won't kick you, but I am getting very sick of conservatives trying to label Obama a terrorist, a liar, or some kind of communist nut job. And your original post seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to call him corrupt. I apologise if this wasn't the case.

 

Uh last I checked Conservatives labeled him as being friends with terrorists (the Obama is a terrorist argument doesn't hold water, but his lack of good judgement is easily proven), a liar (which is proven since he's a typical politican from Chicago), and he is associated with enough communist nuts to give a fair argument that he is also a communist nut job.

 

And despite what the DoJ has said thus far, it's entirely possible Obama will be implicated in all of this as well. Illinois is the most corrupt state in the United States and Obama has the same associations as this Illinois Governor.

 

Regardless, the Governor is associated with Obama.

[jonathan7]

I'm reposting this as I never got an answer, and to me this is the crux of the problem, if Obama is guilty of any crime he should tried in a court of law; under innocent until proven guilty proviso (i.e. how the justice system should work). This at least to me seems to be nothing but trial by media.

 

Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

 

And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.

 

Yup that's still my opinion , and I would argue a lot of the above as to what Obama is guilty of is down to opinion, I'll agree its fact when he's tried in a court of law (innocent until proven guilty etc).

 

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

 

Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.

[Achilles]

Have you even read what people have posted?

 

1 or 2 associations, okay, 3 or 4 cause for concern, at least 10-20 and they interconnect is downright scary. And Obama ranks in the least 10-20.

So should I assume that you typically ask your associates if they have previously engaged in terrorist activities during your 9th or 10th interaction with them?

 

Last I checked none of my co-workers bombed the Pentagon, the US capital building, and New York City Police Headquarters.

And when was the last time you checked? Please be specific with your response. I want to know at exactly what point you ask your associates if they've ever bombed, or attempted to bomb, any public building.

 

Again we have an unrepentent terrorist that brags about what he did.

One good non-sequitur deserves another: So you would rather that we elected the unrepentant terrorist that bragged what he did? Y'know, the Navy pilot that dropped bombs on Vietnamese villages. No civilian casualties there, eh?

 

I don't know where you're working at, the worst thing a co-worker has done is get a DUI, least where I work at.

How do you know? Because you've asked or because you're assuming?

 

Seriously, DUI's, Chicken whatever, and the boss having a collection of magazines, doesn't concern me. It's the one that is a terrorist that concerns me.

How do you know that none of your coworkers are terrorists? Because you've asked or because you're assuming?

[GarfieldJL]

So should I assume that you typically ask your associates if they have previously engaged in terrorist activities during your 9th or 10th interaction with them?

 

Ayers, is a matter of public record and has a tendency to brag about it.

 

And when was the last time you checked? Please be specific with your response. I want to know at exactly what point you ask your associates if they've ever bombed, or attempted to bomb, any public building.

 

Considering it's against company policy to hire someone like that, I don't have to.

 

One good non-sequitur deserves another: So you would rather that we elected the unrepentant terrorist that bragged what he did? Y'know, the Navy pilot that dropped bombs on Vietnamese villages. No civilian casualties there, eh?

 

That was uncalled for, putting it mildly.

 

 

How do you know that none of your coworkers are terrorists? Because you've asked or because you're assuming?

 

Because my work would have fired them for either lieing on their job application, or upon their conviction.

[Adavardes]

Oh, and I'd love to hear what you have to say about EnderWiggin calling you out on outright lying about what O'Reilly and Hannity have said on this issue earlier, as you seem to have pulled a Palin and shifted right around that.

 

I want an answer to this question, otherwise, I'm just going to hold every single argument you make from this point forward in complete falsity. I'm tired of you jumping around this blatant accusation to your word, and in my opinion, this is completely relevant to any further accusations against Obama made by you.

[Achilles]

Ayers, is a matter of public record and has a tendency to brag about it.

Okay. Do you work with any people that have been associated with domestic terrorists as a matter of public record? When you respond, please consider whether or not you are guessing.

 

Considering it's against company policy to hire someone like that, I don't have to.

This isn't an answer.

 

All companies ask their employees if they are convicted felons when they hire someone. Just because your HR department knows that you're working with a felon doesn't mean that you do. So I'll ask again: How do you know?

 

That was uncalled for, putting it mildly.

It's a perfectly valid question. It seems you'd perfer the unrepentant terrorist over the person that "had associations" with an unrepentant terrorist. I can't follow how that logic works.

 

Because my work would have fired them for either lieing on their job application, or upon their conviction.

But you just said a few posts ago that you worked with someone with a DUI. You appear to be confused re: your companies policies. Regardless, you still haven't answered the question.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay. Do you work with any people that have been associated with domestic terrorists as a matter of public record? When you respond, please consider whether or not you are guessing.

 

I'm not guessing, cause I know dang well the answer is no.

 

All companies ask their employees if they are convicted felons when they hire someone. Just because your HR department knows that you're working with a felon doesn't mean that you do. So I'll ask again: How do you know?

 

Because the store I work at is relatively small, its a campus bookstore and some lunatic like that could be a potential danger for students.

 

It's a perfectly valid question. It seems you'd perfer the unrepentant terrorist over the person that "had associations" with an unrepentant terrorist. I can't follow how that logic works.

 

I don't appreciate you calling people that put their lives on the line for this country to be terrorists.

 

But you just said a few posts ago that you worked with someone with a DUI. You appear to be confused re: your companies policies. Regardless, you still haven't answered the question.

 

Considering I work at a store that is on a college campus, DUI's aren't all that uncommon for college students, it's not like we have to worry about the person flying off the handle and trying to kill someone.