Bill Ayers admits he wrote "Dreams From My Father"

[BeAChooser]

He was best bros with this radical left wing fellow traveler

And both of those them are now long gone. Now the Annenberg Foundation is best bros with this conservative right wing fellow traveler:

http://www.flashreport.org/images/SorosGeorge.jpg

 

[BeAChooser]

So, BAC, any data on Ayers' sense of humor?

LOL! So S22, you're an expert on humor detection. How do you know I'm not being humorous in this thread. That this wasn't one big deliberate joke? Afterall, I've given you lots of facial expressions to analyze. Don't just listen to what I say.

 

[timhau]

Sigh. Yes, U, I do. But Walter was rather old by the time of CAC. And I've never claimed the Annenberg Foundation is just left wing (although they've clearly supported some very left wing causes). Maybe they did so because left wing projects are often disguised by very reasonable sounding verbage? For The Children. Progressive. And all that. In any case, there is no denying that Ayers' (and Obama's) project (CAC) was quite leftist in ideology, content and spending. And generally wasteful since they basically failed to accomplish their goal of improving education. And there is no denying that FactCheck is to the left in it's presentation of subject after subject. And so are many of the currently funded Anneberg projects. But no doubt you will deny it. Like I said, a river of denial runs through JREF.

 

[Upchurch]

And there is no denying that FactCheck is to the left in it's presentation of subject after subject. And so are many of the currently funded Anneberg projects.

Ah, that must have been why raging liberal Dick Cheney said:

If you go, for example, to FactCheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton

And why FactCheck.org defended Cheney against false claims by Kerry.

Look, just because FactCheck.org defends the left from false claims from the right that doesn't mean it is "left in it's presentation" nor that they don't also defend the right from false claims from the left. Being independent means they do their job regardless of who is lying about who.

 

[kookbreaker]

LOL! So S22, you're an expert on humor detection. How do you know I'm not being humorous in this thread. That this wasn't one big deliberate joke? Afterall, I've given you lots of facial expressions to analyze. Don't just listen to what I say.

We know you aren't trying to be funny because we've seen your sense of humor and it consists of nothing but trying to be cruel to anything slightly to the left of Darth Vader.

Seriously, replace your excessive overuse of smileys with 'Haw-Haw-Haw's and you become the political equivalent of a Chick Tract.

 

[mysteronyx]

LOL! So S22, you're an expert on humor detection. How do you know I'm not being humorous in this thread. That this wasn't one big deliberate joke? Afterall, I've given you lots of facial expressions to analyze. Don't just listen to what I say.

Straw man: I never said I was an expert in humor detection.

Red Herring: Discussing your intentions is a dodge.

Devaluing rational discussion: By equivocating your intentions, you've ruined rule #3 in rational discussion: All parties involved need to be telling the truth.

Of course, I could also claim that you're failing the other two rules:

#1: All parties involved need to be informed on the topic.
#2: All parties need to know how to reason.

 

[CptColumbo]

Not an analysis. Just non-specific opinion. Deserved to be ignored.

Go ahead, CC, address the specific evidence listed in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392 , rather than just waving your hands in dismissal.

Have you read any of the books you earlier cited or the book that is the topic of the thread you started?

 

[Arus808]

Have you read any of the books you earlier cited or the book that is the topic of the thread you started?

Of course he hasn't. Cashill is the only thing he is shilling in favor of Ayers wrote the book. And Cashill is a fraud. he's using cashill to prove, yet cashill is using HIMSELF and Anderson as his source, who doesn't link or provide evidence of anything that he claims.

a freaking circle jerk of nonsense.


Here are deconstructions of the claims that Cashill has made of Obama in the past:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/deconstructing-jack-cashill/


Cashill's "claim" of Ayers writing his book? Unsupported nonsense:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/ghostwriters-in-the-sky/


And Cashill isn't above smearing people to fit his agenda:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/01/abercrombie-smeared/


Yeah that is such a credible source you're using BAC.

 

[NotJesus]

LOL! So S22, you're an expert on humor detection. How do you know I'm not being humorous in this thread. That this wasn't one big deliberate joke? Afterall, I've given you lots of facial expressions to analyze. Don't just listen to what I say.

This is simply pathetic.

 

[Thunder]

BAC- why do you hate President Obama?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, I'm not even clicking your links until you provide the proof I requested.

And in which post did you request proof? The only specific, serious question I find from you in this thread is this:

"If Ayers said it was a joke, would you conclude that you were wrong and that he didn't write Obama's memoirs?"

So let me ask you, did Ayers say it was a joke?

I've found no indication of that.

Here's evidence that he said another statement by him was just a joke, however.

http://richgibson.com/billyayers.html

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at," is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but "it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did," he said. "It was a joke about the distribution of wealth."

Do you believe that he didn't actually say that statement about killing the rich and killing parents? Note that according to the http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-M....php?cp=2&si=1&cparticle=2&siarticle=1#artanc source, he doesn't deny saying it. He only says "The rhetoric was excessive because the times were excessive. The war had escalated, so naturally the language escalated. No one thought I meant that literally." He offered an excuse, not an indication it was a joke. So do you believe his claim that it was just a "joke about the distribution of wealth" … given that at the time the Weathermen under his direction were building nail bombs to kill people dancing and having a good time? Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

We know you aren't trying to be funny because we've seen your sense of humor

Have you? Or perhaps you just don't understand it like you claim I don't understand Ayers'?

 

[timhau]

And in which post did you request proof?

Here:

You can easily stop the speculation. Just present us with proof that you never dated Michelle and that Barack never peed in your cereals.

Because there's no smiley, that was a serious question. I'm graciously giving you the chance to present your side. Do you have something to hide?

 

[BeAChooser]

Have you read any of the books you earlier cited or the book that is the topic of the thread you started?

What's the problem, CC? Go ahead and address the specific evidence listed in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392. I'm making it easy for you. That's just a brief summary of a much larger body of evidence. But if you can demolish the evidence in that link, then I doubt anything I might then add from Cashill's book would matter in this debate. If you won't/can't even deal with that, why should I bother to start adding material from Cashill's book? You're wasting everyone's time, CC, with needless diversion and handwaving. Just deal with what's already before you ... if you can.

 

[CptColumbo]

What's the problem, CC? Go ahead and address the specific evidence listed in http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392. I'm making it easy for you. That's just a brief summary of a much larger body of evidence. But if you can demolish the evidence in that link, then I doubt anything I might then add from Cashill's book would matter in this debate. If you won't/can't even deal with that, why should I bother to start adding material from Cashill's book? You're wasting everyone's time, CC, with needless diversion and handwaving. Just deal with what's already before you ... if you can.

You didn't answer the question.

If you haven't read the book, why should I respond to your analysis of someone else's analysis of a subject you have not bothered to do even the most elementary amount of research on? Your basing your opinion entirely on what someone else told you and not thinking for yourself.

 

[BeAChooser]

Cashill's "claim" of Ayers writing his book? Unsupported nonsense:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/ghostwriters-in-the-sky/

This is the only link you offered that deals with this specific allegation and that's a link that contains absolutely nothing more than opinion … by an author whose name I don't even see listed. There's no specific "deconstruction" of Cashill's evidence and assertions about Ayers, Obama and the Dreams book. No facts offered to show the 5 analyses cited by Cashill are invalid. Nothing to show Cashill made up anything. Nothing to demonstrate that what Cashill said regarding the 8 distinct approaches is unsound or doesn't lead to the conclusion Cashill reached. Your link is just an opinion … a handwaving dismissal … that the claim has no substance to it. No different than the unsupported dismissals you folks have offered on this thread. The only specific challenge offered by the author of that link (who, again, is who?) is to suggest (without offering any evidence) that Cashill made up the assertion that Christopher Andersen "supports his view".

Well to that I say here:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=111388

September 28, 2009

… snip …

Today, radio host Mancow Muller arranged for Cashill to question Andersen about the book.

Andersen described how Obama was "hopelessly blocked" in writing his book then turned to Ayers for help.

When Cashill inquired about the sources for the book, Andersen said he had two separate sources "within Hyde Park" but would not elaborate. Andersen insisted he made no claim Ayers wrote "Dreams," but he did not deny Ayers' deep involvement.

… snip …

Andersen wrote how for four years Obama failed to finish "Dreams," then "sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers."

Andersen said Obama had taped interviews of many of his relatives, then, "These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers."

… snip …

Andersen, in "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," writes that Obama was faced with a deadline with the Times Books division of Random House to submit his manuscript after already having canceled a contract with Simon & Schuster. Confronted with the threat of a second failure, his wife, Michelle, suggested he seek the help of Ayers.

… snip …

Andersen concludes, "Thanks to help from the veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books."

Now I leave it to you to contact WLS (AM) in Chicago (http://www.wlsam.com/ ), which is where Mancow Muller hosted a show at the time of the interview. Or perhaps you should go to http://www.mancow.com/, subscribe and use that site's archives (http://www.mancow.com/pg/jsp/general/audiolanding.jsp ), which extend back to 2005, to prove that interview didn't happen as indicated. Or, you can keep hiding boxedin like you've been doing.

 

[BeAChooser]

Here:

Thanks for proving my point about you.

 

[Thunder]

Thanks for proving my point about you.

have you actually read, Dreams From My Father?

have you actually read, The Audacity of Hope?



..and if not, what gives you the right to comment on their writing style?

 

[BeAChooser]

If you haven't read the book, why should I respond to your analysis of someone else's analysis of a subject you have not bothered to do even the most elementary amount of research on?

But I have done the most elementary research. For one, I've read the links already offered that you apparently haven't read. Baby steps, CC, baby steps. If you can get through those articles and destroy them, THEN, perhaps, you are ready for the big leagues. But I doubt you'll even try out now. You're in the mode like everyone else here.

 

[BeAChooser]

..and if not, what gives you the right to comment on their writing style?

And if I say yes, what do you do then?