I'm not sure the McCain campaign is quite slimy enough

[billydkid]

Funny how indignant you are about slimy attacks coming from McCain supporters when you're not exactly trying to elevate the debate yourself, to put it charitably.

I have to add that even if I were directing a barb at McCain - I am on a forum representing only myself. I am not standing on a podium representing a candidate who is running for the highest office in the land. I think the difference is significant.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have to add that even if I were directing a barb at McCain

What do you mean, "even if"? Are you trying to deny that that's exactly what you just did?

- I am on a forum representing only myself. I am not standing on a podium representing a candidate who is running for the highest office in the land. I think the difference is significant.

Except you were including McCain supporters, who are not on a podium or running for office, in your original criticism.

 

[billydkid]

What do you mean, "even if"? Are you trying to deny that that's exactly what you just did?



Except you were including McCain supporters, who are not on a podium or running for office, in your original criticism.

No, I wasn't directing a barb at McCain. I was making a joke at my own expense, as I posted a few posts up. And I was referring to the way that those ON the podium were whipping up the stupid into a frenzy - throwing the rabid dogs raw meat.

 

[Meadmaker]

Have you seen they have that milf Palen out there

When calling someone slimy, I would avoid the use of the term "milf" in describing the other side. But that's just me.

 

[Tricky]

...well, why exactly is attacking Obama's connections to Ayers beyond the pale?

Mostly because it exaggerates those connections and it paints the now college professor Ayers (and Obama by implication) as someone who is likely, in the future, to bomb buildings. Only a fundamentally dishonest person would make the claim that Obama's circumstantial and superficial connection with Ayers makes him likely to be in league with active, dangerous terrorists. Yet that is exactly the implication that McCain and (especially) Palin are pushing.

If you can forgive Mohmar Khadaffi, why not Ayers?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why would you say this when his staff and his vice presidential pick haven't been saying most of what's being alleged? As for being a terrorist sympathizer, the only thing his staff or VP pick have done, well, why exactly is attacking Obama's connections to Ayers beyond the pale? I can understand why one might argue that those attacks are wrong, but that's not what's being alleged in this thread.

"Terrorist sympathizer"?

Now that's good slime. That's rancid. Anyone who touches that will never ever quite get clean again.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mostly because it exaggerates those connections

Isn't how close they were exactly the question?

and it paints the now college professor Ayers (and Obama by implication) as someone who is likely, in the future, to bomb buildings.

Not really. Plenty of terrorist sympathizers wouldn't commit terrorism themselves. Thank goodness, too, or we'd have a much greater problem with terrorism than we do.

Only a fundamentally dishonest person would make the claim that Obama's circumstantial and superficial connection with Ayers

What the hell is a "circumstantial" connection? That's a meaningless phrase. And there's good reason to believe that the connection may not have been superficial, so your claim that it takes fundamental dishonesty to conclude otherwise is simply wrong.

If you can forgive Mohmar Khadaffi, why not Ayers?

Who said I've forgiven Khadaffi? The fact that we're not actively trying to punish either of them doesn't (and shouldn't) exempt them from being called exactly what they both are: terrorists. And why are you arguing for forgiving Ayers when he's never actually been punished for his crimes? Or even expressed regret for them.

 

[Ziggurat]

When calling someone slimy, I would avoid the use of the term "milf" in describing the other side.

Unless you're talking about MILF.

 

[Tricky]

Isn't how close they were exactly the question?

If it is, the answer is, "not close at all". That should have been the end of it.

Not really. Plenty of terrorist sympathizers wouldn't commit terrorism themselves. Thank goodness, too, or we'd have a much greater problem with terrorism than we do.

Without getting into a big discussion of what "terrorism" means, I don't think it has been established that Ayers is a terrorist sympathizer either. I was once a Christian. That doesn't mean I'm still a Christian sympathizer.

What the hell is a "circumstantial" connection? That's a meaningless phrase.

No, it is not. It so happened that they both chose to do some charity work and wound up on the same board together. That's about as circumstantial as you can get. Did they seek each other out to join this board together? If that is the claim, we're going to need some evidence. If that is not the claim, then their overlapping schedules are circumstantial.

And there's good reason to believe that the connection may not have been superficial, so your claim that it takes fundamental dishonesty to conclude otherwise is simply wrong.

I haven't seen any good reasons. I've seen slurs and innuendo. Ayers is not one of Obama's enormous contingent. There's no indication they have even kept close contact.

CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the non-profit projects in which the two men were involved. Internal reviews by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic "have said that their reporting doesn't support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship".

Who said I've forgiven Khadaffi? The fact that we're not actively trying to punish either of them doesn't (and shouldn't) exempt them from being called exactly what they both are: terrorists. And why are you arguing for forgiving Ayers when he's never actually been punished for his crimes? Or even expressed regret for them.

Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"
***
In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."
***
In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

To me, that paints the picture of a man who still thinks the Vietnam war was a horrible mistake (as I do) and regrets that he couldn't do more to stop it (as I do), but not a man who would now commit terrorist acts. He is a respected and highly honored college professor. For pete's sake, they met on a frikken charity board!

Do you think he is a threat to America? Seriously?

 

[Upchurch]

If it is, the answer is, "not close at all". That should have been the end of it.

But what does that say about Obama's character?

And remember to say your answer in the form of a smear against Obama.

 

[pgwenthold]

It so happened that they both chose to do some charity work and wound up on the same board together. That's about as circumstantial as you can get. Did they seek each other out to join this board together? If that is the claim, we're going to need some evidence. If that is not the claim, then their overlapping schedules are circumstantial.

In fact, all "serving on the same Board of Directors" shows is that they both knew a person who was forming a Board of Directors and thought they would be good members to serve on it.

Was Obama expected to go and do a background check on all the other members of the Board before accepting the position? Heck, did he even know who else was on the Board before he accepted?

Once on the Board should he have not worked to do the best job possible? Should he have quit, even though he thought it was a good cause?

 

[Tricky]

But what does that say about Obama's character?

And remember to say your answer in the form of a smear against Obama.

The malingering bastard is too lazy to perform background check on every person he ever has had contact with, to make sure they weren't in a terrorist organization fourty years ago. How can he look at himself in the mirror.

 

[Augustine]

Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"
***
In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."
***
In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

Regarding the wikiquotes:
The meeting with Elrod occurred prior to the publication of Ayers' Fugitive Days memoir, which ironically enough nearly coincided with September 11, 2001. Ayers and Dohrn apologized for Elrod's suffering as a result of the Days of Rage. However, they "made it clear that they did not believe [Brian] Flanagan caused [his] injuries, and that they were not disavowing their militant beliefs". I don't read a lot of regret about their role in his injuries, seems more like a "sorry you happened to get hurt while we were rioting, and we think you're lying about our friend's role in your injuries, but we're apologizing because there's a book coming out (mom made us)"...

As far as Bill Ayers condemning terrorism, that is NOT an expression of regret for his activities as a Weatherman, because he does not consider himself a "terrorist" (see his rambling pseudo-"apology" of March 2008 on his own blog).

"I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response" - that is part of his "condemnation" of terrorism. Who does he see causing these "innocent people" to "die in response"? Why does this have to be included in his condemnation of terrorism? The answer to that goes a long way to understanding that Bill Ayers has never really changed his worldview.

 

[Upchurch]

The mayor of St. Louis, Francis Slay, was at the rehearsal dinner for my wedding*. His wife wished us good luck. Since then, I've actually bumped into him several places, mostly fundraisers for various organizations or building openings.

Did you know that Francis Slay is associated with a known atheist? Isn't Slay's association with atheist Upchurch a valid question to be raised in the mostly Catholic St. Louis?


* It was at a famous restaurant in town. He and his wife just happened to be there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you know that Francis Slay is associated with a known atheist? Isn't Slay's association with atheist Upchurch a valid question to be raised in the mostly Catholic St. Louis?

You're comparing associating with someone who doesn't share your religious beliefs with associating with a terrorist. This says much more about your beliefs about religious people than it does about my argument. Either that, or you're just throwing out arguments you really don't believe in, hoping something might stick. Weak, Upchurch, really weak.

 

[Suddenly]

The malingering bastard is too lazy to perform background check on every person he ever has had contact with, to make sure they weren't in a terrorist organization fourty years ago. How can he look at himself in the mirror.

McCain is a longstanding and proud member of an organization that includes in its leadership an admitted former member of a domestic terrorist organization.

Give up?

The senate includes former KKK member Robert Byrd...

 

[Tricky]

Regarding the wikiquotes:
The meeting with Elrod occurred prior to the publication of Ayers' Fugitive Days memoir, which ironically enough nearly coincided with September 11, 2001. Ayers and Dohrn apologized for Elrod's suffering as a result of the Days of Rage. However, they "made it clear that they did not believe [Brian] Flanagan caused [his] injuries, and that they were not disavowing their militant beliefs". I don't read a lot of regret about their role in his injuries, seems more like a "sorry you happened to get hurt while we were rioting, and we think you're lying about our friend's role in your injuries, but we're apologizing because there's a book coming out (mom made us)"...

As far as Bill Ayers condemning terrorism, that is NOT an expression of regret for his activities as a Weatherman, because he does not consider himself a "terrorist" (see his rambling pseudo-"apology" of March 2008 on his own blog).

"I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response" - that is part of his "condemnation" of terrorism. Who does he see causing these "innocent people" to "die in response"? Why does this have to be included in his condemnation of terrorism? The answer to that goes a long way to understanding that Bill Ayers has never really changed his worldview.

So now it is not that he didn't apologize, but that he didn't apoligize enough. Or that you don't find his apology sincere. I'm feeling a draft from the goalpoats as they go whizzing by.

 

[Augustine]

So now it is not that he didn't apologize, but that he didn't apoligize enough. Or that you don't find his apology sincere. I'm feeling a draft from the goalpoats as they go whizzing by.

Goalposts haven't moved. Demonstrate to me where William Ayers has acknowledged that his past activities as a Weatherman were in fact terrorist actions, and that he regrets them. He has not, and selective quotations in a wikipedia article misrepresent the truth. If you would care to challenge anything else from my post, feel free.

 

[Augustine]

McCain is a longstanding and proud member of an organization that includes in its leadership an admitted former member of a domestic terrorist organization.

Give up?

The senate includes former KKK member Robert Byrd...

I am not sure the Obama campaign wants to use this tact...given that Byrd has endorsed Obama, Obama and Biden are both also proud members of this organization, as well as another one with Byrd (Democratic Party), and Biden has been a member of the organization the longest....

 

[Upchurch]

You're comparing associating with someone who doesn't share your religious beliefs with associating with a terrorist.

What I'm doing is comparing associating someone who doesn't share some of my values with associating someone who doesn't share some of Obama's values.

Incidentally, is Ayres still a terrorist? My understanding is that he turned himself in, condemned all forms of terrorism, and has contributed time and money to improving his community. That doesn't excuse what he did, but isn't it a tad simplistic to label him as only "terrorist"?

This says much more about your beliefs about religious people than it does about my argument. Either that, or you're just throwing out arguments you really don't believe in, hoping something might stick. Weak, Upchurch, really weak.

If you must criticize everything I say, please try to at least understand it before you do so. If you don't understand what I'm trying to get across, just ask. I'd be happy to clarify.