Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Who are those guys?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, October 07, 2008

First we had Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's preacher for 20 years. We find out Wright is anti-American, antisemitic and bases his church in the black liberation theology of James Cone. What clued us in was the fact that he preaches all of that from the pulpit and it was available on DVDs sold out of the lobby of the church.

Barack Obama's reaction on "learning" of this - "wow, I had no idea."

Then comes William Ayers, leader of the Weather Underground during the '60s and '70s, responsible for the bombing of the Pentagon, the Capitol and various other places. An unrepentant domestic terrorist who later helped get Barack Obama the job as chair on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, served on the Woods Fund board with Obama and helped launch Obama's political career from his living room.

Barack Obama's reaction on "learning" all of this - wow, I had no idea.

I'm detecting a pattern here.



While this may not be the best way for the McCain camp to attack Barack Obama at this juncture (and, of course that remains to be seen), there certainly seems to be much more to the Ayers/Obama relationship than "oh, he's some guy in the neighborhood" doesn't there?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Bringing it up now only serves as a distraction from the point that Obama has had several strong relationships with very anti-American individuals.

Because the Obama camp, the media, and the trolls can keep us mired down in the details of it for the better part of a month. The general public won’t know which end is up.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
There are strategies that work to persuade political junkies. And then there are strategies that work with voters who, quite candidly, are a heck of a lot more interested in baseball playoffs and the NASCAR championship chase than they are in politics.

It’s very hard to know what will resonate with the second group. But the Ayers thing certainly has potential. If a firm connection between Ayers and Obama becomes part of the common man’s understanding of who Obama is (a big if), it will definitely sway some voters. Ayers’ early terrorist arrest pictures with the famous insolent cocked head, Ayers standing on the American flag, and Ayers unrepentendly saying "We didn’t do enough" will especially effect those, such as union voters, who normally mechanically vote Democrat.

Attempts to put this whole thing off might have just served to bring it to the fore at the wrong time for Obama. The mainstream media has done a great job up to this point in protecting Obama. But a few of them are still sensitive to charges of bias, and we might even see a bit of over-compensation once a story gets rolling. This CNN thing surprised me. It should have been done six months ago, and I’m surprised to see it at all. It’s possible that at least some of the media are realizing the damage to their brand from their Obamamania, and trying to make amends. Better late than never, I guess.

A lot depends on how McCain and Palin handle these attacks on Obama aimed at average, not-very-informed voters. Except for the Palin pick, McCain has just run an abysmal campaign. (So has Obama, but when you have the entire mainstream media on your side, you don’t have to run a great campaign.)

McCain sounds like someone going through the motions. He seems to want desperately believe in a world in which folks just recognize what a great guy he is, how much experience he has, etc., and vote for him on that basis alone. Well, he isn’t that great a guy, and people don’t see Washington experience as nearly as valuable as he seems to think.

Based on actual history, the financial problems ought to be blamed more on Democrats than Republicans. But the whole thing is so messy it’s much easier for in the tank journalists to sell that it’s a problem of deregulation by that nasty and incompetent Booosh admininstration, and that McCain should be tarred by association. Then just avoid showing footage of McCain pleading for reform years ago to prevent the problems, and you’re all set.

Obama has everything going for him at this point, so McCain is going to have to raise his game to win. I can’t see a real downside to working on the Ayers thing. Sure, sure, Keating blah blah, but there are no pictures of Keating standing on an American flag, and trying to paint Mr. Campaign Finance Reform as a typical grabbing politican is much harder than trying to paint Obama as a leftist (because he is).
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I think it’s entirely relevant to everything involved to raise these questions. If a guy is running for president, isn’t it useful to know what his ideas are? Presumably these are the ideas that are going to influence his actions as prsident. Peggy Noonan wrote something very appropos a week or two ago, that McCain seems to be finding or making up his ideas as he goes along, whereas Obama seems always to be concealing his. Clearly everything about the man’s history, from his upbringing, the people he cits as influences, the people he has chummed around with, his voting record, etc., all point to him being some kind of Marxist or Neo-Marxist. Saying that has no relevance to the problems the country is facing is absurd.

It’s like there’s a big fire (say, the economic crisis) , and Obama is rushing to the head of the bucket brigade with a bucket filled with some indeterminate liquid that smells like it could be gasoline, and saying, "Hey, let me deal with this!" Isn’t is appropriate to ask if the bucket does in fact contain gasoline before he throws it on the flames and makes the fire worse?
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Have you seen a more transparent attempt to reframe an issue?

"It’s not my fault ... I was only 8 years-old!"
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
He obviously isn’t the terrorist Barry knew.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Why is it that after being dragged into an alleyway for three weeks by the Left, beaten, raped, and sodomized by Obama’s "get in their face" people, is Palin supposed to now play nice?

Let Sarah Palin rush the puck, let her put Obama into the boards, let that woman skate.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
While this may not be the best way for the McCain camp to attack Barack Obama at this juncture (and, of course that remains to be seen), there certainly seems to be much more to the Ayers/Obama relationship than "oh, he’s some guy in the neighborhood" doesn’t there?
Of course it’s not the best way for the McCain camp to attack Barack Obama, not at any juncture.

I told you guys back in the spring, like I’m telling you now, this whole Wright/Ayers guilt by association thingie is crap. It won’t work. If Obama himself had said or done similar things that Wright or Ayers did, then yes, Obama would have never gotten off the ground. But normal people, unlike you guys, do not normally damn someone with guilt by association. At least with such a muddled association.*
You have no evidence that Obama endorsed such words or actions from Wright or Ayers. In fact, you have Obama denouncing the words and actions from such figures as Wright and Ayers. And my guess is that in tonight’s debate, you won’t find McCain bringing up Wright or Ayers. If only because a) the McCain campaign knows, unlike you guys, that such things worry little the viewing undecided voters that the campaign needs to sway, and b) it would just give Obama another opportunity to denounce Wright and Ayers.

If this were another time… A time without economic worries, a time without two ground wars, a time without an unpopular president, a time without the vast majority of voters thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction, then the questionable relationship that Obama had with his past associations would no doubt be enough to dissuade voters from changing parties in the executive.



Let me help the McCain campaign out. McCain’s problem now is that he seems convinced that he needs to give the voters a reason not to vote for Obama. When what he really needs to do is give the voters a reason to vote for McCain.
And now he seems to be heading down a path of destruction that may, if he’s lucky, dissuade a few voters from Obama, but in no way offers a reason to vote for McCain.


* Please spare us the diatribes about Obama’s relationships with Ayers and Wright. I’ve read McQ’s several dozen posts on the subject. I’ve read many other blogs and watched many other pundits spew the same distant constellation of dots to connect and I remain unconvinced that these, albeit questionable, relationships are damning enough to disqualify Obama for the presidency.
Again, if you had any evidence that Obama himself said, wrote, or did anything similar to Ayers or Wright, then you would have something. But you don’t, so you don’t.

Your best bet is to get off this road to nowhere, and attempt to get the McCain campaign to form a useful strategy.
Perhaps convincing voters that he’s able to provide checks and balances to a one party rule in Washington.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Yes Pogue, by all means let’s ignore the long term association with Wright and Ayers. Let’s ignore the hypocrisy of trying to paste McCain with the Keating 5 scandal while asking us to ignore the long term associations in Obama’s past.

Let’s talk about what Senator/City Councilman Obama has actually accomplished in his distinguished career instead. Because that will be a very short conversation.

Is the Joyce Foundation of interest to anyone? Let’s talk about manufactured legal scholarship to accomplish political goals through the judiciary.

No, let’s not. I know enough about Senator Obama. Just call me a racist.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
A time without economic worries, a time without two ground wars, a time without an unpopular president, a time without the vast majority of voters thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction,
Hey Pogue, why don’t you mention the unpopular Congress along with the Unpopular President.

Let’s not forget the truth in our search for the truth.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Pogue’s right. Just because a person is a red-diaper baby who has associated all his life with radical socialists, is no reason to assume he is a radical socialist. I bet if we dug deeper into Obama’s past, we’ll also find that he was, at various times, a member of the NRA and the Cato Institute. Doesn’t mean he’s pro-freedom.

Personally, I think Obama’s a closet libertarian. I’ll bet he used to come home from church and say, "You know, Michelle, Rev. Wright preaches that ’Black Liberation’ theology, but it seems to me that’s just pressing Christianity into the service of a very vulgar kind of Marxism. He also attacks individualism, but it’s individualism that made America great! Some day I’ll have to let him know how I feel, but meanwhile there’s no other church we can attend, and I’m kinda busy right now. . . ." He probably told Ayers, "Hey, wait, Bill! You’re a communist? And a violent one at that? Hey, nobody told me! I thought you were some sort of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist! You need to read Hayek and Von Mises, pal—they’ll show you the errors of Marxism!"

That’s why it’s good to bring this stuff up before the election. So the Chosen One can show us just how committed to liberty he actually is. I’m sure he welcomes the opportunity. It’s not like he or his helpers have been trying to cover up his past. It may seem that way, but if it does, you’re obviously a racist.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Hey Pogue, why don’t you mention the unpopular Congress along with the Unpopular President.
Okay. Fair enough.
A time without economic worries, a time without two ground wars, a time without an unpopular president, a time without an unpopular congress, a time without the vast majority of voters thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction,
Yeah, Looker, I don’t think that changes anything.

No, let’s not. I know enough about Senator Obama. Just call me a racist.

It’s not like he or his helpers have been trying to cover up his past. It may seem that way, but if it does, you’re obviously a racist.
Nobody mentioned anything about racism until you guys did.

You guys are wanting the race card?

Yeah... Go fish.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I’m sorry, Pogue. You’re right. I shouldn’t have mentioned racism. Especially after Obamanation has gone out of its way to avoid accusing anyone of racism.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
I told you guys back in the spring, like I’m telling you now, this whole Wright/Ayers guilt by association thingie is crap.
It’s not "guilt by association." It’s guilt by formative political alliance.

If Obama had gone on annual retreats with Fidel Castro, would you call that "guilt by association?"

Ayers is not "some guy who lives in my neighborhood," he’s a guy who made Obama the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and then had Obama shovel cash to his radical projects, in schools and elsewhere, including ACORN.

Obama took the name of his second memoir from a sermon by Wright. Worse: he took his kids to Wright’s racist church. And there’s no "former" in a pastor whose church you attended and whose counsel you sought for 20 years before dumping him three quarters of the way (and but three months ago) into a bid to become President of the United States.

Not "guilt by association." Bad character and no judgment. Or worse.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Actually, I believe in a modified form of guilt by association. If you’ve been hanging around your whole life with totalitarians, and never attempted to disassociate yourself with them except when it becomes politically expedient, I think I can safely conclude that you are either a masochist (who perversely hangs around with people who disparage your own ideas), or more likely either (a) a chronic dupe, (b) someone who to some extent sympathizes with totalitarians, or (c) a totalitarian yourself. If (a), (b) or (c), not a guy I’d want running the country.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
time without economic worries, a time without two ground wars, a time without an unpopular president, a time without an unpopular congress, a time without the vast majority of voters thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction,
Yeah Pogue, see it does, because your implication for anyone who’s been paying attention hangs everything in your statement (sans Congress) on George Bush and his Administration, not that it’s inaccurate of course, but it’s incomplete.
And of course we know John McSame McCain’s possible Presidency is just an extension of the Bush Administration, Obama’s campaign has told us so, repeatedly.

Bush isn’t the only one who MAKES these decisions because, ya know, we have 3 branches of Government, not a king, and Congress is complicit, though never held guilty, in any direction we’re heading when it goes into the toilet (like not enough government control of Wall Street, which is Bush’s fault, but not Congress’s fault).

Oh, you didn’t mention Congress....
Ah, see, for me, that DOES change it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It’s not "guilt by association." It’s guilt by formative political alliance.
Hah! Yeah, I can see that in the exit polling now... "Why did you vote for McCain?" "Because of Obama’s ’guilt by formative political alliances’."
An obvious answer, right?

If Obama had gone on annual retreats with Fidel Castro, would you call that "guilt by association?"
No, but he didn’t go on annual retreats with Fidel Castro, did he? Nor did he go on annual retreats with Ayers or Wright, did he? Bathwater is often too heavy when babies are present.
...
Not "guilt by association." Bad character and no judgment. Or worse.
And yet, nobody cares.
Oh, you didn’t mention Congress....
Ah, see, for me, that DOES change it.

And looker, just like McPhillips, it’s not about you.

Heh, you guys made your mind up two years ago. You disqualified Obama simply because he had a (D) in front of his name, let alone all of the... yes, justifiable... concerns that you guys have.
This is about those proverbial undecideds. And like I’ve stated over and over again, the Wright and Ayers nuts do not fit the bolts that that are these voters.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Considering that, by the 1930s, the Democratic Party had become the major state-socialist party in the US (so much so that perennial socialist president candidate Upton Sinclair retired from politics, saying that FDR had stolen his platform), and then been pushed even further into collectivism by the New Left-influenced McGovernites in the 1970s, anyone who values liberty would be well advised to be wary of any politician with "(D)" after his name. However, if Obama were some kind of throwback to the limited-government Democratic Party of Jefferson and Jackson—and was willing to take the same tough stand against the Islamofascists that Jefferson took against the Barbary Pirates—he’d certainly get my vote, especially against McCain. Of course, in today’s Democratic Party, such a Democrat would never be bnominated.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
No, Obama is disqualified for:

Lack of accomplishments other then getting voted into office.

History of backing socialist doctrine.

Since then, we’ve seen he’s just another Chicago liberal. He funnels money to his family. He has poor judgment in who he surrounds himself with in the political arena.

He’s a big talkin’, big taxin’, big spendin’ liberal progressive leftist democrat.

No amount of sugar coating would get that pill down.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Good work, Keith.
And now that Obama has weathered that storm, what do you think McCain should do next?

Talk about Ayers and Wright???

Or maybe put together some coherent strategy of his own?

Any other ideas?

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Also, Pogue, aren’t the unecided voters entitled to know what a candidate’s all about? The kind of guy he is, the values he holds, the ideas he believes in? You know, beyond "hope" and "change" and "someday we will all ride unicorns."

My own feeling is that anyone who hasn’t figured out by this time (even with Team Obama working overtime to cover the Chosen One’s backtrail and their cheerleaders in the MSM aiding and abetting the cover-up) that the Lightworker isn’t a Grade A State-shtupper, is probably too stupid to vote and probably should stay undecided and stay home.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Of course they’re entitled. They’re also entitled not to give a sh!t.

They’re also entitled not to give two yanks of a wanker about what you think.

They’re also entitled to judge Obama by what he says and does against the things that his past associations did and said.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
But all evidence suggests that what Obama says (now that he’s running as a faux-centrist) is not what he actually believes. His voting record does not suggest a centrist at all. The MSM doesn’t seem to want to grill him on this, so why not judge him by his associates? They at least constitute evidence that that he’s a doofus, if not an outright bad guy.

My own increasing suspicion is that he may be simply a power-luster, kind of like Ellsworth Toohey (no doubt a hero of yours) in THE FOUNTAINHEAD: a guy who’s too smart to buy into any of the buncombe "liberals" believe, but who finds such people "useful idiots" in his quest for power. Obama just lacks Toohey’s charm and erudition.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Nobody mentioned anything about racism until you guys did.
So the Obama campaign has said nothing about race! At all? Wow, Pogue, you just kill me. Hey you could probably be the best replacement for big Ro on the View. Hey, I hear fire can’t melt steel.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Maybe it is because Obama’s memory on these guys is a tad convenient.

Or maybe, just maybe, he is a completely dishonest sack of crap. Hey, I am just saying, is all.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
But all evidence suggests that what Obama says (now that he’s running as a faux-centrist) is not what he actually believes. His voting record does not suggest a centrist at all.
Non sequitur.
Is there anything in Obama’s record that shows he want to "damn America to hell" or that he wants any government buildings destroyed with explosives? What does Obama’s voting record have anything to do with Ayers or Wright? Which, if you’ve forgotten, is what we’re discussing.

So the Obama campaign has said nothing about race! At all? Wow, Pogue, you just kill me. Hey you could probably be the best replacement for big Ro on the View. Hey, I hear fire can’t melt steel.
Hey capt., I think your douchebag just sprung a leak.
I never mentioned anything about race. I never mentioned anything about the Obama campaign.
Next time you want to cleans yourself, make sure you have a tight seal, will you?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
They’re also entitled to judge Obama by what he says and does
Cool, ya know I was pretty interested in what he said way back when this started. You can find me defending his church choice against Martin right here on this very blog, until I began to see more and more and more detail about that choice.

Now, I know what he SAYS Pogue, that’s why he caught my interest and made me consider for he first time I can remember considering a vote for a guy who had a (D) next to his name. Now what, exactly, has he DONE? And we don’t get to ask what McCain did as a counter to that, we’re talkin about "moonponies and sunshine for everyone" man here now.

The answer so far seems to be, not so much, other than run for office, and associate with people of dubious reputation while doing so.

So, it’s not about me, other than I seriously considered the guy, we’re talking about him.

What has he done, other than make promises he can’t possibly keep.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
From Salon:
The Palins’ un-American activities
Imagine if the Obamas had hooked up with a violently anti-American group in league with the government of Iran.
By David Talbot

Oct. 07, 2008 | "My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that’s the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")

....

Vogler wasn’t just a blowhard either. He put his secessionist ideas into action, working to build AIP membership to 20,000 — an impressive figure by Alaska standards — and to elect party member Walter Hickel as governor in 1990.

Vogler’s greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States "tyranny" before the entire world and to demand Alaska’s freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue.

That’s right ... Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran.
I think this is the best point in the article:
Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

Where’s the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama’s fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.
I can assume only that the otherwise regular posters here must be unaware of the first dude’s treasonous leanings, and his wife’s wholehearted support. What else can explain their complete silence on the issue? After all, last I heard, Ayers isn’t sleeping with Obama or Biden.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Is there anything in Obama’s record that shows he want to "damn America to hell" or that he wants any government buildings destroyed with explosives?
And this is, frankly, a continuously bulls* argument that is being used by the ’left’.
No, I don’t believe he wants to blow us up, or damn us to hell. With the exception of drive-by’s no one here believes either of those things either.
But we do wonder where he’s going to take us Pogue, and we don’t think, based on what his record shows, that it’s a place we want to go. And part of his record is associating with people who have a rather skewed view of what’s good for the average American, totin his gun and clutchin his Bible and all that other scared white guy stuff that Obama himself mentioned.

Now, that may mean it’s about ’me’ again, but in this case it’s the country we live in, so I think in this case, what "me" thinks matters. It WAS his association with Wright that did him in for me, finding out later he associated with Ayers was just further proof that he makes bad choices about who he associates with.
They love to hang Bush for the associations has DAD has with oil fat-cats. But Obama’s association with known, unrepentant terrorists and black supremacists? Not so much, right?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Elizabeth Hasselback had those exact same talking points on The View. She gets slapped down pretty hard.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
And this is, frankly, a continuously bulls* argument that is being used by the ’left’.
No, I don’t believe he wants to blow us up, or damn us to hell. With the exception of drive-by’s no one here believes either of those things either.
But we do wonder where he’s going to take us Pogue, and we don’t think, based on what his record shows, that it’s a place we want to go.
Fine.
But what his record shows and whatever place this is that you do not want to go has nothing to do with Ayers/Wright.
It’s not bullsh*t to point out that his record has no resemblance to what Wright and Ayers were. They do not correlate, looker.

You can say that his record shows that he will take you to a place you don’t want to go. And you can also state that due to his past associations, his character represents a place that you don’t want to go. But what you can’t say, is that his record shows resemblance to Wright/Ayers.

It’s not bullsh*t to point that out.

Why would you want to? There’s no reason to.
If taken separately, then you’re good to go. But they don’t mix in the same pot. And it’s not necessary that they do. So why confuse the two?

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
MK - how is that a party that discusses some probably goofy legal action to get Alaska to be an independent (country) state is committing treason?

Do you have any proof at all that they’ve ever discussed armed insurrection against the United States of America?
If you have, please contact the FBI at the first possible opportunity, I’m sure they’ll know what to do from there, that’s part of their job.

Ah, but you don’t, do you. If there was, it wouldn’t be a legitimate but goofy political party in Alaska, it would be on the FBI watchlist for domestic terrorism.

IS IT?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
But what you can’t say, is that his record shows resemblance to Wright/Ayers
True, but I don’t think that’s what’s being said.

What’s being done is questioning his judgement by virtue of demonstrated association he’s made.
And by extension his possible future judgements based on his past judgements.

People do that all the time, in regard to judgements, we do it every time we examine a Supreme Court Justice nominee. Why should I do any less for a President?

Now, am I thrilled with John McCain? Frankly no, this is a hold my nose and vote election.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Elizabeth Hasselback had those exact same talking points on The View. She gets slapped down pretty hard.
The View?
Retief?
A talk show? That’s your demonstration of the validity or non-validity of arguments?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What Obama knew about them is a good question, but even if he never knew anything whatsoever about who they (Wright, Ayers, etc.) are/were, it leaves another good question: "What did they see in Obama that made them want to hang out with him?"
 
Written By: Veeshir
URL: http://
"What did they see in Obama that made them want to hang out with him?"

It is clear that Ayers and Wright saw a man who could further their political beliefs.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But what you can’t say, is that his record shows resemblance to Wright/Ayers.

It’s not bullsh*t to point that out.

Why would you want to? There’s no reason to.
If taken separately, then you’re good to go. But they don’t mix in the same pot. And it’s not necessary that they do. So why confuse the two?
Not necessarly, Pouge.

Once upon a time, the USSR wanted (via the CPUSA, IIRC) to endorse FDR. FDR wasn’t quite trying to set up an outright communist US, but he was pushing in the right direction.

Obama pushes in the direction Wright/Ayers want to go.

Consider that, in our inherently conservative system, movement is slow. Revolutionary movements, like Ron Paul’s political campaign, usually don’t achieve anything. Political success is achieved one small step at a time.

If we end up with President Obama, and the mood is right for anti-capitalist reform due to the financial crises, the steps will likely be bigger and more damaging to America than would otherwise be the case.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Pogue:
"If Obama himself had said or done similar things that Wright or Ayers did, then yes, Obama would have never gotten off the ground."
Did you ever know that Lenin was never a revolutionary bank-robber, but that Stalin was? And that Lenin knew it, of course?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
MK - how is that a party that discusses some probably goofy legal action to get Alaska to be an independent (country) state is committing treason?
Jesus, do you read? The founder of the party said the United States was his "enemy." He said that he would "fight" them with "any means" at hand. Has the party disowned this rhetoric? Hardly.

Indeed, the same article says that the spokesperson for the party says that Palin shares the views of the founder and praises her for it.

But let’s be clear here: The AIP wants Alaska to split away from America. And Palin praised the party just last year.

Sorry, but in my book those who seek the second highest office in the land on the one hand, and who at the same time praise those who would seek to cleave off the sovreign territory of the United States on the other, are traitors.

I guess that’s the difference between me and wingnuts. Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I told you guys back in the spring, like I’m telling you now, this whole Wright/Ayers guilt by association thingie is crap. It won’t work
The reason, of course is that Democrats are shameless.

Next?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Some examples of the radical, traitorous, anti-American position of the AIP;

"Platform
1. We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska. ...."

http://www.akip.org/platform.html


"The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party’s founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

http://www.akip.org/goals.html


"Statehood
Please see the goal of the AIP.
Alaska has never been an equal state.
Feds create and enforce laws which are only in effect in Alaska
Many in the AIP support INDEPENDENCE. Some support COMMONWEALTH and others support STATEHOOD.

It is the AIPs wish to get a true plebecite according to international law, only legal Alaskan citizens, it is in the language of the people, federal military and their dependants are not legal citizens and will not be allowed to vote in this plebescite "

http://www.akip.org/issues.html#25

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider