The Ayers thread

[Achilles]

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

Because you've asked them, because you've asked them as part of a vetting process, or...?

 

You've yet to tell me at what point you interview/vet your associates. Thus far you've only provided me with the reason why you feel safe, not the reason you are safe (big difference).

 

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.

That's great. Doesn't answer the question though. I'll ask a third time: How do you know?

 

If you don't provide a specific response in your next reply, I'll have no other choice than to assume that you don't know and therefore have no room to continue commenting on this topic without further exposing your hypocrisy. Deal?

 

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

Shall we apply this same standard to suicide bombers? Or are you hoping to invoke special pleading for your specific ideology?

 

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.

This doesn't answer the question. If you don't know simply say so. I, for one, will appreciate the honesty.

[Adavardes]

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

 

So, let me get this straight. When your preferred candidate's character is called into question, you act as if it's an outright unfair attack to his person that deserves only offense, yet when you call Obama's character into question, you act as if it's a perfectly valid basis for argument, even when you have yet to actually prove any of it with solid facts.

 

Hm.

[GarfieldJL]

Because you've asked them, because you've asked them as part of a vetting process, or...?

 

Because most of them are too young to have participated in something like that for starters...

 

You've yet to tell me at what point you interview/vet your associates. Thus far you've only provided me with the reason why you feel safe, not the reason you are safe (big difference).

But I'm not the employer.

 

That's great. Doesn't answer the question though. I'll ask a third time: How do you know?

 

Well considering the fact that in most cases they wouldn't have been born at the time of the Weather Underground, its kinda impossible for them to have participated in bombing the Pentagon.

 

If you don't provide a specific response in your next reply, I'll have no other choice than to assume that you don't know and therefore have no room to continue commenting on this topic without further exposing your hypocrisy. Deal?

 

Well considering they wouldn't have been born yet in most cases, and the fact none of my coworkers, nor has my boss ever bragged about something like that, kinda makes it highly unlikely. Whereas, Bill Ayers has bragged about what he did, wrote books on it, etc.

 

You quite frankly aren't exposing anything but your own smear campaign.

 

Shall we apply this same standard to suicide bombers? Or are you hoping to invoke special pleading for your specific ideology?

 

Wouldn't fly because he was dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air trying to hit railway lines and bridges. He wasn't targetting civilians, a suicide bomber just goes in and tries to kill anyone they can. You are out of line and your smear campaign of the members of the US Military is out of line.

 

This doesn't answer the question. If you don't know simply say so. I, for one, will appreciate the honesty.

 

Looks to me, you're out to conduct a smear campaign of myself and anyone else that criticizes Obama.

 

So, let me get this straight. When your preferred candidate's character is called into question, you act as if it's an outright unfair attack to his person that deserves only offense, yet when you call Obama's character into question, you act as if it's a perfectly valid basis for argument, even when you have yet to actually prove any of it with solid facts.

 

No, McCain flying a plane in a war zone trying to hit targets from several thousand feet off the ground, the intended targets were military in nature not civilian. Ayers and co. deliberately tried to kill a Judge's family (which included small children), see the difference?

 

Connection to Obama:

http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/09/08annenberg.h28.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/10/09/08annenberg.h28.html&levelId=2100

http://alysonlove.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-dont-know-if-this-will-break-through.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/12/16/obamas-new-school-chief-supported-creating-gay-high-school-chica

[Adavardes]

Wouldn't fly because he was dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air trying to hit railway lines and bridges. He wasn't targetting civilians, a suicide bomber just goes in and tries to kill anyone they can. You are out of line and your smear campaign of the members of the US Military is out of line.

 

 

 

Looks to me, you're out to conduct a smear campaign of myself and anyone else that criticizes Obama.

 

...

...

...

 

WE'RE out to start a smear campaign against McCain, yet your smear campaign against Obama, and a man of education, is completely justified. When you do it, it's criticising, but when we point out the flaws of your former candidate, it's a smear campaign. The double standards here are literally amazing.

[GarfieldJL]

WE'RE out to start a smear campaign against McCain, yet your smear campaign against Obama, and a man of education, is completely justified. When you do it, it's criticising, but when we point out the flaws of your former candidate, it's a smear campaign. The double standards here are literally amazing.

 

No you're smearing Military Veterans and people who criticize Obama in general. The claim is that you're just going after McCain, doesn't hold any water whatsoever and you know it.

[Adavardes]

No you're smearing Military Veterans and people who criticize Obama in general. The claim is that you're just going after McCain, doesn't hold any water whatsoever and you know it.

 

Seems to me like a valid point. Many of the surviving Vietnam veterans are excessively mentally damaged due to the fact that they were put into situations where victory came at the cost of civilian lives. Truth is, McCain could have very well killed innocent women and children during the war, and blindly glorifying him for it serves no further purpose than to make us ignorant to his possible past transgressions. I won't argue its validity, as I have not seen proof for its validation, nor its invalidation. But, to me, it holds more water than claiming Obama "pals around with terrorists", and just because you want to generalise the situation involving McCain, or try to appeal to some sort of sacred status for war veterans that frankly isn't real, doesn't make that any less true.

[GarfieldJL]

Seems to me like a valid point. The surviving Vietnam veterans are excessively mentally damaged due to the fact that they were put into situations that came at the cost of civilian lives. Truth is, McCain could have very well killed innocent woman and children during the war, and blindly glorifying him for it serves no further purpose than to make us ignorant to his possible past transgressions. I won't argue it's validity, as I have not seen proof for its validation, nor its invalidation. But, to me, it holds more water than claiming Obama "pals around with terrorists", and just because you want to generalise the situation involving McCain doesn't make that any less true.

 

No, your comparison is beyond the pale because it was a war-zone, do you honestly mean to tell me McCain was deliberately gunning for women and children? That's complete and total garbage and you know it.

[Adavardes]

No, your comparison is beyond the pale because it was a war-zone, do you honestly mean to tell me McCain was deliberately gunning for women and children? That's complete and total garbage and you know it.

 

So somehow, a warzone invalidates innocent human lives? That makes a lot of sense. And he just accidentally killed them, so that makes it okay? Kinda like how suicide bombers accidentally kill people they don't mean to in order to kill one person, or a group of people. Right. There's totally a difference there.

 

The difference? He's American, so that makes him better. Isn't that right?

[Q]

While McCain payed for any "crimes" (perceived or otherwise) several times over through his severe injuries and his long tenure at the Hanoi Hilton where he was mercilessly tortured, Ayers has yet to pay for his very real and documented crimes or even to express any remorse for having committed them.

So somehow, a warzone invalidates innocent human lives?

Harsh as it may seem, yes. Such is the nature of war. Is it fair? No.

[Achilles]

Because most of them are too young to have participated in something like that for starters...

What is the age limit for "something like that"?

 

But I'm not the employer.

Doesn't matter.

 

You either vet your associates and therefore have every right to criticize Obama for not doing the same or you do not and therefore have no right to criticize Obama for failing to live up to some standard which you only seem to apply to him. Slightly false dichotomy but you get the drift.

 

Well considering the fact that in most cases they wouldn't have been born at the time of the Weather Underground, its kinda impossible for them to have participated in bombing the Pentagon.

The Weather Underground/their "bombing" of the Pentagon are not the only examples of domestic terrorism or domestic terrorist organizations.

 

The question is not whether you know anyone in that specific organization, rather at what point you personally vet your associates to determine whether or not they are a member of any terrorist organization. See if you don't do so yourself, then it would seem more than a little odd that you would expect others to.

 

Well considering they wouldn't have been born yet in most cases, and the fact none of my coworkers, nor has my boss ever bragged about something like that, kinda makes it highly unlikely. Whereas, Bill Ayers has bragged about what he did, wrote books on it, etc.

 

You quite frankly aren't exposing anything but your own smear campaign.

Rather than answer the specific question that I've posed to you several times for clarity, you choose to introduce a strawman argument.

 

Per my last post, I have no other option than to assume that you do not vet your associates. As such, your expectation that Obama should have done so has no merit whatsoever.

 

Wouldn't fly because he was dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air trying to hit railway lines and bridges. He wasn't targetting civilians, a suicide bomber just goes in and tries to kill anyone they can. You are out of line and your smear campaign of the members of the US Military is out of line.

Military action against civilians is terrorism. Period.

 

Looks to me, you're out to conduct a smear campaign of myself and anyone else that criticizes Obama.

Nope just trying to keep you honest. I'm done here.

[Adavardes]

While McCain payed for any "crimes" (perceived or otherwise) several times over through his severe injuries and his long tenure at the Hanoi Hilton where he was mercilessly tortured, Ayers has yet to pay for his very real and documented crimes or even to express any remorse for having committed them.

 

Sure. Because an unrelenting media attack on his character isn't enough to punish him for a failed attempt to bomb a building when he was a half-cocked hippy with a half-cocked mission to take down the establishment, which was, again, forty years ago.

 

Harsh as it may seem, yes. Such is the nature of war. Is it fair? No.

 

No. Maybe that's enough for you, but I don't believe the government ever has a right to kill innocents no matter how many zones they put up.

[EnderWiggin]

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

 

Are you kidding? Everytime you smear Obama all I hear is Source please.

 

 

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.

 

Amen.

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.

 

Thanks

 

That was uncalled for, putting it mildly.

Uncalled for? Or true?

So, let me get this straight. When your preferred candidate's character is called into question, you act as if it's an outright unfair attack to his person that deserves only offense, yet when you call Obama's character into question, you act as if it's a perfectly valid basis for argument, even when you have yet to actually prove any of it with solid facts.

 

Hm.

 

QFE.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?

Define "a lot of those ideals". Which ideals? I have a lot of ideals with regards to a lot of different subjects. If I sat on a board with someone who shared my ideals regarding philanthropy, does that automatically mean that person shares my ideals with regards to conservation?

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and ask themselves how much they vet those they associate with. I've sat on boards, both as a member and as chair. I promise you that I've never thought to Google any of the people I've associated with to see if they were political activists that did silly things when I was 8 years old. I'm willing to bet that no one here can tell me they have either.

 

The whole "domestic terrorist" thing is silly to begin with. The fact that we're discussing Obama's "ties" to Ayers is sillier still. And the fact that many of the participants in this thread seem to have some completely overblown expectation re: how Obama should have vetted someone he associated with is the silliest thing of all (imo).

 

Seriously, I think that unless someone can clearly outline the vetting process they apply to their associates, they should be prohibited from commenting further.

 

As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks.

Were you familiar with either the name "William Ayers" or "The Weather Underground" before Hillary Clinton brought them up? I will admit that I had never heard of either. Why is it reasonable that I should expect Obama to have been familiar with them (emphasis once more on the fact that Obama was 8 and may have been living overseas when all this occurred)?

 

Since open warfare is not a clandestine (semi- or otherwise) operation, and open warfare has specific intended targets (enemy combatants) rather than symbolic targets, actions conducted during war are not technically terrorist acts.

I can see how this would work when imagining a scenario with two ground forces engaging each other on the battleground. What about when stealth bombers are on night-time bombing runs? I will argue that not all military action neatly dodges even the well-defined guidelines that you have provided.

 

McCain's actions during the Vietnam war thus do not fall under the definition of terrorism.

Per the argument above, I disagree (assuming that any of his missions involved anything other than a bridge or a anti-aircraft missile site, etc).

 

Any willful violations of the laws of land warfare would fall under the heading of war crimes.

It could be both things at the same time. I don't think we're forced into an either/or distinction.

 

Since there's no evidence that he attempted to violate the laws of warfare, he can't be charged with war crimes, either.

Indeed. This is all largely hypothetical.

 

Thanks for the great links.

[EnderWiggin]

Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?

 

I feel the same way as Achilles here. I consider us friends, Jae (to the extent that LF can create friendship.) Now, I (hypothetically) believe in cannibalism. However, I also believe in supporting our troops. Now, if you were running for office and one of your main campaign platforms was supporting our troops, I might throw you a fundraiser, yes?

 

But, the question is: Do you then believe in cannibalism? Only on days not ending in 'y'. --Jae

I think not.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Define "a lot of those ideals". Which ideals? I have a lot of ideals with regards to a lot of different subjects. If I sat on a board with someone who shared my ideals regarding philanthropy, does that automatically mean that person shares my ideals with regards to conservation?

 

So you're admitting that Ayers and Obama share some ideals?

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and ask themselves how much they vet those they associate with. I've sat on boards, both as a member and as chair. I promise you that I've never thought to Google any of the people I've associated with to see if they were political activists that did silly things when I was 8 years old. I'm willing to bet that no one here can tell me they have either.

 

No, we do not need to sit back, and here's why, Obama signed off on one of Ayers' books, he started his political campaign in the guy's living room. Ayers brags about setting bombs, this isn't I didn't know about it, this is he bragged about it. He wasn't 8 years old when it was 2001 and Ayers said:

"I do not regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

 

The whole "domestic terrorist" thing is silly to begin with. The fact that we're discussing Obama's "ties" to Ayers is sillier still. And the fact that many of the participants in this thread seem to have some completely overblown expectation re: how Obama should have vetted someone he associated with is the silliest thing of all (imo).

 

No, we're saying the fact that he didn't disassociate himself when the guy ended up in magazines, gave interviews on TV, etc. where he said he didn't regret setting bombs. He wasn't 8 years old in 2001.

 

Seriously, I think that unless someone can clearly outline the vetting process they apply to their associates, they should be prohibited from commenting further.

 

It wasn't just being a coworker, the guy brags about setting bombs and Obama still associates with him. Last I checked none of my coworkers were given interviews with major media outlets.

 

Were you familiar with either the name "William Ayers" or "The Weather Underground" before Hillary Clinton brought them up? I will admit that I had never heard of either. Why is it reasonable that I should expect Obama to have been familiar with them (emphasis once more on the fact that Obama was 8 and may have been living overseas when all this occurred)?

 

Actually I was, because Bernie Goldberg brought up a story sympathetic to terrorists published by either the New York Times or Time Magazine that hit the shelves on 9/11/2001, and William Ayers was the guy they interviewed.

 

I can see how this would work when imagining a scenario with two ground forces engaging each other on the battleground. What about when stealth bombers are on night-time bombing runs? I will argue that not all military action neatly dodges even the well-defined guidelines that you have provided.

 

They didn't have smart munitions in Vietnam, the technology wasn't in existence yet. You try dropping a dumbfire bomb with anti-aircraft guns shooting at you from a few hundred to a few thousand feet in the air going several hundred miles an hour. It would be very difficult to hit a target with perfect weather conditions.

 

Per the argument above, I disagree (assuming that any of his missions involved anything other than a bridge or a anti-aircraft missile site, etc).

 

To give a Star Wars equivalent, I wasn't aware the John McCain could use the force and hit a target that was only 2 meters wide without a targetting computer while skimming a trench with turbolaser fire flying all about. Seriously, that's what your argument boils down to.

 

 

Face it there is no comparison, Obama is friends with a man that tried to kill innocent people to make a political statement. McCain was flying a jet in a warzone and was being shot at.

[Astor]

From Ayers on the subject of the 'We didn't do enough' statement:

 

: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough s***"' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'

 

Of course, i'll bet Ayers is just lying.

[jonathan7]

Face it there is no comparison, Obama is friends with a man that tried to kill innocent people to make a political statement. McCain was flying a jet in a warzone and was being shot at.

 

Am I really missing something but why does it matter if Obama is or not friends with this guy? Are you responsible for your friends thoughts/feelings/actions? Some of my friends act like utter muppers sometimes, doesn't mean I stop being friends with them. Besides I'm going to yet again make my point, as you keep ignoring it...

 

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.

 

Last time I checked its not a crime to be friends with someone who has committed a crime.

[GarfieldJL]

@Astor_Kaine, I couldn't care less what Ayers is trying to say to try to spin things because he has absolutely no credibility.

 

Am I really missing something but why does it matter if Obama is or not friends with this guy? Are you responsible for your friends thoughts/feelings/actions? Some of my friends act like utter muppers sometimes, doesn't mean I stop being friends with them. Besides I'm going to yet again make my point, as you keep ignoring it...

 

I'll say this again, I've been making this point at least 100 times. If it had been just Bill Ayers and his wife by themselves, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

Fact is though, that is not just Bill Ayers and Ayers' wife. We have 4 people/organizations that he's associated with that all are tied together in one way or another that share the same ideaology just in the letter 'A'. We can go on and on about Obama's association with Ayers, but Ayers is just the tip of the iceberg. We also have Rezko, members of the PLO when it was a terrorist organization, we have Rev. Wright, we have Rev. Moss, we have Pastor Pfleger, and those are the people I can name off the top of my head. It isn't one or two bad associations, it's a whole pattern that leads one to doubt his judgement or wonder if he believes the same way these individuals do.

 

Last time I checked its not a crime to be friends with someone who has committed a crime.

 

Again it isn't just about Ayers, all these negative associations indicate he either has worse judgement than President Bush when Bush appointed Rumsfeld (which is kinda hard to top), or he believes the same radical ideaology that they do.

[jonathan7]

<snip>

 

I still don't see what laws Obama has broken - if he's guilty of breaking a law, then he should be sent to a court of law.

 

Furthermore, I think Bush's associations with the Bin-Laden family are far more "concerning", than anything in thread about Obama. But again - Bush hasn't broken any laws, so I consider it a moot point.

 

Again it isn't just about Ayers, all these negative associations indicate he either has worse judgement than President Bush when Bush appointed Rumsfeld (which is kinda hard to top), or he believes the same radical ideaology that they do.

 

Are bad judgement or radical ideology illegal? I thought America was for freedom of speech?

[GarfieldJL]

I still don't see what laws Obama has broken - if he's guilty of breaking a law, then he should be sent to a court of law.

 

We're not saying he should be thrown in jail, we're questioning his judgement and saying he either has poor judgement or has been lieing to everyone and the media isn't doing its job and calling him on it.

 

Furthermore, I think Bush's associations with the Bin-Laden family are far more "concerning", than anything in thread about Obama. But again - Bush hasn't broken any laws, so I consider it a moot point.

 

Didn't they disown Osama Bin-Laden though? Again, blaming family members of someone is a bit ridiculous. When the person chooses to directly associate with the person that actually set bombs to target innocent people, that's their choice.

 

If Obama was associated to Bill Ayers' brother (which I believe he doesn't have one, but speaking hypothetically), and not Bill Ayers this wouldn't even be a big deal in my opinion unless it surfaced that the brother participated in the bombings.

[mimartin]

Are bad judgement or radical ideology illegal? I thought America was for freedom of speech?

 

left radical ideogy = Bad

 

right radical ideogy = Good

 

Understand?

[GarfieldJL]

Last time I checked its not a crime to be friends with someone who has committed a crime.

 

If this were a Republican (I'm not sure about you, but a lot of others here would), a lot of you would be falling all over themselves demanding their resignation.

 

left radical ideogy = Bad

 

right radical ideogy = Good

 

Understand?

 

Are you trying to pick a fight? Right wing Radicals are lunatics too, but they are treated as lunatics, the left wing ones are treated as though they are the mainstream.

[Achilles]

No, we do not need to sit back, and here's why, Obama signed off on one of Ayers' books, he started his political campaign in the guy's living room.

<snipped>. You're more than welcome to provide a legitimate source to support this, however I suspect that you'll opt to provide a crappy source instead.

 

(hint: he started his political campaign in a Ramada Inn).

 

Ayers brags about setting bombs, this isn't I didn't know about it, this is he bragged about it. He wasn't 8 years old when it was 2001 and Ayers said:

Obama and Ayers didn't meet in 2001, so I don't know what your point is.

 

If I meet someone, work with them for several years, and then find out Thing X about them, it doesn't make any sense to argue that I knew Thing X the whole time.

 

So, yes, "I didn't know about it" seems perfectly reasonable, even in light of the 2001 quote.

 

No, we're saying the fact that he didn't disassociate himself when the guy ended up in magazines, gave interviews on TV, etc. where he said he didn't regret setting bombs. He wasn't 8 years old in 2001.

Same point as above.

 

And why are we to assume that Obama read those magazine interviews, saw Ayers on TV, etc? The men served together on a board. It's not like they were sleeping together.

 

Have you ever served on a board? It's not a 8-hour per day, 40-hour per week, day in and day out kinda thing. It's some phone calls and a couple of meeting each month. I served on one board with the same people for 2 years and only had face-to-face contact with 2 or 3 members more than 10 times. What "serving on a board together" is and what you seem to make it want to sound like are two completely separate things.

 

It wasn't just being a coworker, the guy brags about setting bombs and Obama still associates with him. Last I checked none of my coworkers were given interviews with major media outlets.

And the last time I checked (a few posts ago), you couldn't tell me when you last checked

 

Not much substance here, Garfield.

 

They didn't have smart munitions in Vietnam, the technology wasn't in existence yet. You try dropping a dumbfire bomb with anti-aircraft guns shooting at you from a few hundred to a few thousand feet in the air going several hundred miles an hour. It would be very difficult to hit a target with perfect weather conditions.

1) Smart bombs aren't as precise as you seem to want to suggest they are. 2) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions isn't the topic. 3) The relative level of intelligence of our munitions has nothing to do with whether or not McCain ever flew mission that involve bombing villages.

 

To give a Star Wars equivalent, I wasn't aware the John McCain could use the force and hit a target that was only 2 meters wide without a targetting computer while skimming a trench with turbolaser fire flying all about. Seriously, that's what your argument boils down to.

You can use what ever analogy you'd like. It's not going to change the fundamentals of my argument. Military action against civilians is terrorism.

 

Face it there is no comparison, Obama is friends with a man that tried to kill innocent people to make a political statement.

No he didn't. How many people died or were injured by the bombs set by the Weather Underground? Please tell me precisely how many men, women, and/or children Bill Ayers has killed.

 

McCain was flying a jet in a warzone and was being shot at.

Good for him.

 

left radical ideogy = Bad

 

right radical ideogy = Good

 

Understand?

Quoted for awesome!

[The Doctor]

You know Garfield, you mention this "laundry list" of people, as well as claim that "they all interconnect", but you've not once given any names, nor any explanation as to how they all interconnect with each other, or how they're tied to Obama, or any proof of any kind that isn't from a clearly biased source (ie Fox News, which is so ludicrously biased that it would make a Nazi blush).

 

Stop with the strawmen. Seriously. Until you do, I'm reporting every single one of your posts as flamebait, because that's all they really are. I don't think you even believe anything you're saying anymore, you're just trying to get a rise out of people.

 

Apologies. In the future, I will certainly refrain from arguing moderation decisions in public threads, and will utilise the PM system. ~ Doc

 

Thank you. --Jae

 

If this were a Republican (I'm not sure about you, but a lot of others here would), a lot of you would be falling all over themselves demanding their resignation.

If there were any proof, yes. But so far, you've given no such proof about Obama. At all. You're conducting a smear campaign, plain and simple, and I for one am sick and tired of listening to it. Guess what? Barack Obama is the next President of the United States. If he had actually done anything more questionable than any other political candidate in modern history, he would have been called on it by legitimate officials long ago.

 

 

left radical ideogy = Bad

 

right radical ideogy = Good

 

Understand?

 

You win this thread.

[Astor]

If this were a Republican (I'm not sure about you, but a lot of others here would), a lot of you would be falling all over themselves demanding their resignation.

 

I for one certainly wouldn't, unless it was shown that the Republican in question was actually a part of any illicit activities, which, so far, you haven't proved about Obama.