Palin's attack, brings its own questions

[Snide]

Chuckle Chuckle. So they wanted to know if Alaska could secede, and brought the issue up to their Supreme Court who settled it. What do you know about the matter? Is the move from a territory to a state a one way street? How would you decide the matter?

Using the method of Ayers, Wright, or this party?

Argue all you want about which group and its methods are "better" or whatever, the main point, again, is that Palin is playing the Ayers card, so Obama is within his rights to play the ASM card. Not that it never was within his rights, or that "she's doing it too" alone makes it excusable. But again, the point you miss, which was nowhere near idiotic, is that it is fair game. In fact, it could be done tastefully, without smearing....by using just the facts, and letting the voters decide.

 

[not_so_new]

I'm drawing the analogy to Ayers, although no analogy need be drawn. As I've shown, the Alaska party operates within and with full awareness of their constitutional rights.

I agree, they didn't do anything wrong in my eyes. So Obama did something unconstitutional with his "relationship" with Ayers?

Of course not... not unless you can prove that he had plans of attacking buildings or killing officials with a tenured professor in tow as a conspirator... which I don't think you can... can you? Again, of course not.

This attack by McCain isn't about Obama going around throwing bombs, it's about the perception in the eyes of voters about "Un-American actions" by Obama.

By THESE guidelines, the eyes of public perception (not the straw-man argument you are setting up about the Alaska party's constitutional rights) Palin is MORE at fault because she sleeps in the same bed with someone who would be perceived as "Un-American" based on his party affiliation.

Again, this whole thing is BS. Don't we have more pressing issues to talk about.... say maybe this?

 

[mhaze]

I agree, they didn't do anything wrong in my eyes. So Obama did something unconstitutional with his "relationship" with Ayers?

Of course not... not unless you can prove that he had plans of attacking buildings or killing officials with a tenured professor in tow as a conspirator... which I don't think you can... can you? Again, of course not.

This attack by McCain isn't about Obama going around throwing bombs, it's about the perception in the eyes of voters about "Un-American actions" by Obama. .....

I've said nothing on the character of Obama, but he's certainly not been the sharpest tool in the shed regarding his choice of associates and friends.

On this issue he ranks dumber than dumb.

You "know a man by his friends", they say...

 

[mhaze]

Argue all you want about which group and its methods are "better" or whatever, the main point, again, is that Palin is playing the Ayers card, so Obama is within his rights to play the ASM card. Not that it never was within his rights, or that "she's doing it too" alone makes it excusable. But again, the point you miss, which was nowhere near idiotic, is that it is fair game. In fact, it could be done tastefully, without smearing....by using just the facts, and letting the voters decide.

Nonsense.

As I understand your argument, you've got to defend your candidate against the fact that his buddies-Ayers, Wright, Reynes - bomber, felon, racist bigot - with a tasteful thingy about ASM?

Gee, this gets more interesting every day!

 

[Nogbad]

I'm drawing the analogy to Ayers, although no analogy need be drawn. As I've shown, the Alaska party operates within and with full awareness of their constitutional rights.

If you care to try to support logical connections between that and Wright's agipropaganda, good luck.

The Ayres of today is not the Ayres of the 1960s.

It is a fairly lame attack on Obama as far as I can see. It might actually suggest that the McCain camp don't have a lot of good material to work with.

As a matter of interest can Alaska secede? I thought nothing escaped once assimilated to the Borg.

 

[mhaze]

The Ayres of today is not the Ayres of the 1960s.

It is a fairly lame attack on Obama as far as I can see. It might actually suggest that the McCain camp don't have a lot of good material to work with.

As a matter of interest can Alaska secede? I thought nothing escaped once assimilated to the Borg.

That is what caught my eye also, not the political stuff. The Alaska Supreme Court said the referendum could not be placed on the ballots in the fashion AIP wanted. Skirted the big issue, no doubt.

Ayres has no doubt morphed but his comments made on 9/11/2001 suffices for anyone seeking to understand him and having two (or more) brain cells.

 

[Whiplash]

The Ayres of today is not the Ayres of the 1960s.

This really should not be relevant because the same argument would fall flat on it's face when compared to other people who have done even worse things. There is a line where someone can go too far and no amount of refrom of their character is going to give them full redemption in the long run; and anyone who associates with said person in todays world could fairly have their judgement questioned. But somehow I think that even this common sense will be utterly rejected.

The question is whether Ayres crossed that line, and I think he clearly did. But because he was a left wing extremist, the left is very quick to want to give him a pass and forgive him. When I'm quite certain that such a thing would not even remotely be tolerated from anyone on the right, by the very same people. It's hypocrisy.

A good example of this kind of thing is the way the left is so quick to want to forgive anything and everything ever done by Robert Byrd, while screaming for the head of Trent Lott for just saying nice things about someone who was also a reprehensible person at one time in his past.

 

[seayakin]

Trying to equate Obama with terrorism because he had the backing of a 1960s student radical seems a tad desperate to me. One might as well try calling him Paddy O'bama and say he must be connected to the IRA with a name like that.

Bill Ayres is now 64 and a distinguished professor. I really can't see what Palin hopes to gain from this other than a minute inspection of the past of everyone who has ever given her support.

A U.S. immigration official in 1990 implied I might be an IRA terrorist when he wouldn't let me fly back from Calgary to Salt Lake City because I didn't have a birth certificate or passport proving I was a US citizen. I felt like mouthing off and saying the IRA is just dying to kill all those Englishman who happen to fly from Calgary to Salt Lake City. I guess I don't look Arab enough for his imagination to choose the PLO (or was that eh JPF).

In any case, this campaign tactic smells of desperation and the McCain campaign is now just throwing a lot of mud and hoping some of it sticks.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow

By SARA KUGLER – Sep 23, 2008

NEW YORK (AP) — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday barred most pool reporters from her meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the first foreign head of state she has ever met.

Journalists protested the campaign's decision to exclude all but photographers and a TV crew from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders. CNN decided to withdraw its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she sought for her initial foray into world affairs. The campaign then reversed course, saying pool reporters — a small group that provides information to all media — could attend the meetings planned after Karzai hosted Palin at his suite in The Barclay New York Hotel.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...Sm2owD93CK8780

Yah think Karzai's suite at the Barlcay compares to Ayer's living room?

Geez, look also what the NY Times has to say about President Karzai and family:

By JAMES RISEN

Published: October 4, 2008

WASHINGTON — When Afghan security forces found an enormous cache of heroin hidden beneath concrete blocks in a tractor-trailer outside Kandahar in 2004, the local Afghan commander quickly impounded the truck and notified his boss.

Before long, the commander, Habibullah Jan, received a telephone call from Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai, asking him to release the vehicle and the drugs, Mr. Jan later told American investigators, according to notes from the debriefing obtained by The New York Times. He said he complied after getting a phone call from an aide to President Karzai directing him to release the truck.

Two years later, American and Afghan counternarcotics forces stopped another truck, this time near Kabul, finding more than 110 pounds of heroin. Soon after the seizure, United States investigators told other American officials that they had discovered links between the drug shipment and a bodyguard believed to be an intermediary for Ahmed Wali Karzai, according to a participant in the briefing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/wo.../05afghan.html

Hmm…..

 

[Nogbad]

This really should not be relevant because the same argument would fall flat on it's face when compared to other people who have done even worse things. There is a line where someone can go too far and no amount of refrom of their character is going to give them full redemption in the long run; and anyone who associates with said person in todays world could fairly have their judgement questioned. But somehow I think that even this common sense will be utterly rejected.

The question is whether Ayres crossed that line, and I think he clearly did. But because he was a left wing extremist, the left is very quick to want to give him a pass and forgive him. When I'm quite certain that such a thing would not even remotely be tolerated from anyone on the right, by the very same people. It's hypocrisy.

A good example of this kind of thing is the way the left is so quick to want to forgive anything and everything ever done by Robert Byrd, while screaming for the head of Trent Lott for just saying nice things about someone who was also a reprehensible person at one time in his past.

It is true that each side has its Bete Noires and will not countenance their presence on the political scene. Neither Lott nor Ayres make the top 100 all time political badies though. The Weathermen/gals managed to blow themselves up but I don't recall them killing other people.

There are some who still consider Nelson Mandela an evil terrorist - many consider him a political giant. In the UK Gerry Adams still causes apoplexy for some but he is an integral part of the Irish peace process. Politics is largely about the possible not the ideal.

 

[FaisonMars]

If they keep up the whining about Ayers, maybe Democrats should start raising the question of why the old doddard at the top of the ticket used to hang out with David Ifshin.

Or Raffaello Follieri. Or Ralph Reed. (but delete "used to.")

 

[MaGZ]

If Palin wants to accuse Obama of hanging out with a terrorist from over 40 years ago who has served his time, and with whom he doesn't agree, then I hereby accuse Sara Palin of hangin with a terrorist ... also: the worst kind, a narco terorist and one who is active today, not four decades ago. See the thread at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4100747#post4100747

I would like to know if Palin discussed (with Karzai) Karzai's role in the drug trade and narco terrorism in Afghanistan, as well as the role of his brother.

I may be wrong on this, but Ayers was never brought to trial because of FBI shenanigans. To my knowledge Ayers never served time for terrorism or bombings, and it is still unclear exactly what he did except belong to terrorist organization.

 

[MaGZ]

If they keep up the whining about Ayers, maybe Democrats should start raising the question of why the old doddard at the top of the ticket used to hang out with David Ifshin.

The name sounds familiar. Wasn’t that one of Clinton’s buddies and McCain knew him via Bill Clinton? If I recall, McCain attended the guy’s funeral.

 

[MaGZ]

Thats irrelevant. They operate within their constitution rights, ok so what. They are literally an anti-American group operating within their constitutional rights.

What do you have to say about the Communist Party USA endorsing Obama?

 

[Upchurch]

What do you have to say about the Communist Party USA endorsing Obama?

They can endorse whomever they like.

 

[MaGZ]

The Ayres of today is not the Ayres of the 1960s.

Actually, the Ayers of the 1960s is the Ayers of today

http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/bill-ayers-stepping-on-us-flag-in-2001.html

This is the article that appeared in The New York Times paper on September 11, 2001 that morning before the attacks.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Perfect synchronicity

 

[MaGZ]

This really should not be relevant because the same argument would fall flat on it's face when compared to other people who have done even worse things. There is a line where someone can go too far and no amount of refrom of their character is going to give them full redemption in the long run; and anyone who associates with said person in todays world could fairly have their judgement questioned. But somehow I think that even this common sense will be utterly rejected.

The question is whether Ayres crossed that line, and I think he clearly did. But because he was a left wing extremist, the left is very quick to want to give him a pass and forgive him. When I'm quite certain that such a thing would not even remotely be tolerated from anyone on the right, by the very same people. It's hypocrisy.

A good example of this kind of thing is the way the left is so quick to want to forgive anything and everything ever done by Robert Byrd, while screaming for the head of Trent Lott for just saying nice things about someone who was also a reprehensible person at one time in his past.

It is doubtful Senator Byrd was reprehensible because he was once a member of the KKK in the 20s or 30s. The Klan back then had the best of White society as its members. At the time, most Protestant business leaders, Democrat politicians and respected members of local churches in the Midwest and South were members of the KKK.

 

[MaGZ]

They can endorse whomever they like.

What does it mean to you?

 

[Upchurch]

What does it mean to you?

Not much. I don't put much stock in the Communist Party's opinion. Do you?

 

[Tricky]

I see it as meaning that even our foes will respect him. Respect is better than loathing as far as solving international problems go. I think some of us should learn to respect those with whom we hold political disagreements. Obama seems more likely to do this than McCain or MaGZ.