What's the Straight Dope on Obama and Ayers?

[Quartz]

Is this WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html#printMode) article accurate?

Obama makes much of having been a community organiser, but if he was a terrorist proxy that casts him in a whole new light. I've had a look at the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama–Ayers_controversy) and am none the wiser. I know the author is a conservative, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

[leander]

To answer your question, No, that article is not accurate. If you are truly interested in finding out about the relationship between Obama and Ayers, spending just a few minutes with Google will provide a plethora of information.

You can also find out a lot about Kurtz with a simple Google search.

[Shodan]

To answer your question, No, that article is not accurate. Which of the factual assertions of the article do you believe are untrue?

Are you asserting That the CAC was not founded by Ayers? That Obama was never chairman of the board? That Ayers was never an ex officio member of the board that Obama chaired? Etc.?If you are merely asserting that one should not draw any conclusions from what has been discovered about Obama's background, that is one thing. If you are disputing the facts as asserted, that is another.

Regards,
Shodan

[RedFury]

Kurtz's Obama-Ayers Fishing Expedition Comes Up Empty (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/23/kurtz-s-obama-ayers-fishing-expedition-comes-up-empty.aspx)

[elucidator]

Not an "article". An opinion piece, that's why it appears on the "opinion" page. The rules for veracity, as well as the rules for slander and libel, are much different. And, my, he does love that one word, "radical", doesn't he? Radical Ayers, radical agendas, radical schools, radical ducks, radical trees.... Enough to make you clutch your pearls and faint dead away!

You don't need a Weatherman to know how much this blows.

[gonzomax]

When Obama was in Chicago there were over 700 murders committed. He was there at that time. That is an undeniable connection. Don't ignore that fact.
The Rush/Hannity/Foxnews/Shodan logic is alive and well.

[Mr. Moto]

I think far too much has been made of Ayers by many of my political allies. That being the case, though, Obama hasn't been upfront about his relationship with him - he minimizes his relationship in debates as that of a neighbor and doesn't bring up at all their long working relationship in nonprofits.

I think a case could be made for swallowing your pride and working with Ayers if you have to - he's something of a fixture. But it doesn't seem like Obama had to swallow that pride at the time. And as I've said before, it is interesting that an unrepentant former bomber can be accepted by educational and liberal political circles in Chicago. If Ayers had been a clinic bomber instead, he'd be persona non grata to everyone.

Anyone denying that this is a legitimate political issue is kidding themselves - they should have known when it came up in Democratic debates that Obama had to deal with it.

[Shodan]

Kurtz's Obama-Ayers Fishing Expedition Comes Up Empty (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/23/kurtz-s-obama-ayers-fishing-expedition-comes-up-empty.aspx)

Well, thanks for the cite to a blog, but I was asking about any of the factual assertions made in the article in the OP. Now (I guess) we have established that Ayers was one of the group that appointed Obama to the board. Fine - it was never in any serious dispute.

Okay, so at least one of the assertions of the article has been established. Are any of the others in dispute, or can we accept that leander's assertion is wrong?

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

I know the author is a conservative, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

No. OTOH, appearing on the WSJ editorials page usually does.

[Shodan]

No. OTOH, appearing on the WSJ editorials page usually does.
Okay, then which of the factual assertions in the article are wrong?

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Not an "article". An opinion piece. Very different.

[Jophiel]

Reading that column, I think that Kurtz must know how Geraldo Rivera felt.

"Well, we have some bottles. And an old coal shovel. And.... a button."

[Gangster Octopus]

Okay, then which of the factual assertions in the article are wrong?

Regards,
Shodan

Maybe just the part where the implication, without much fact, that a National Program that emphasized creative local solutions to education programs was somehow some subversive radical anarchist cell.

[elucidator]

Well, we radical lefties are not fools, we did not rise to a position of absolute power by leaving evidence of our foul schemes just lying around! Today, we seize control of the Chicago school system, tomorrow, we come for your guns, and your daughters! Bwaaa-ha-ha-ha!

Damn! Shouldn't have told you all of this. Would you mind all killing yourselves, save me a lot of trouble with the Central Committee. Thanks!

[BrainGlutton]

Okay, then which of the factual assertions in the article are wrong?

The headline:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

And the concluding paragraph, if you can call that "factual assertions":

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Here, (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/11/nextswiftboat) BTW, is the Obama campaign's response (not to the editorial, but to a TV ad with substantially the same message).

[Chefguy]

Which of the factual assertions of the article do you believe are untrue?

Are you asserting That the CAC was not founded by Ayers? That Obama was never chairman of the board? That Ayers was never an ex officio member of the board that Obama chaired? Etc.?If you are merely asserting that one should not draw any conclusions from what has been discovered about Obama's background, that is one thing. If you are disputing the facts as asserted, that is another.

Regards,
Shodan

OMG! They served on the same board? Get a rope! :rolleyes:

[Euphonious Polemic]

I saw Obama do a terrorist fist bump, and you can't prove otherwise.

They Ayer's "connection" might likewise convince the already convinced, but won't have much traction otherwise.

[Shodan]

So apparently you all have no issues with any of the factual assertions, but you don't like the conclusions drawn from them. That's fair enough - I just wanted to establish that "not accurate" meant what it usually does.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lamar Mundane]

Which of the factual assertions of the article do you believe are untrue?

Are you asserting That the CAC was not founded by Ayers? That Obama was never chairman of the board? That Ayers was never an ex officio member of the board that Obama chaired? Etc.?If you are merely asserting that one should not draw any conclusions from what has been discovered about Obama's background, that is one thing. If you are disputing the facts as asserted, that is another.

Regards,
Shodan

Are you suggesting that Obama, or anyone else associated with his campaign, ever denied any of the above? What is your point?

[Shodan]

Are you suggesting that Obama, or anyone else associated with his campaign, ever denied any of the above? What is your point?

My point is that leander made the bare assertion that the article was not accurate. What we seem to have discovered is that, for those parts capable of being established as fact, it is completely accurate. You just don't like the conclusions.

Regards,
Shodan

[Stephe96]

Ayers is political poison and the Obama camp knows it. Why else would he dismiss his political mentor and long-time co-worker as "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "not someone I exchange ideas with on a regular basis?" This about a guy appointed Obama as CAC's first chairman in 1995! Why not tell the truth?

Why isn't Obama bragging about his relationship with Ayers? Where is Ayers on the campaign trail if there is nothing to be ashamed of here? After all, Obama kicked off his first Senate campaign in Bill Ayers' living room!

Offhand, I can think of only two people who have tried to blow up the Pentagon - Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers. How many of you have even a passing acquaintance with anyone who's ever tried to blow up anything?!

Let's all remember that Jeremiah Wright was someone that Obama "could no more disown" than he could "disown the entire black community." He said that about, oh, one week before he utterly "disowned" Wright via a press release.

[Lamar Mundane]

My point is that leander made the bare assertion that the article was not accurate. What we seem to have discovered is that, for those parts capable of being established as fact, it is completely accurate. You just don't like the conclusions.

Regards,
Shodan
Jim has red hair.
Sarah has red hair.
Therefore, Jim and Sarah are twins.

Is that an accurate statement, Shodan?

[Weirddave]

Are you suggesting that Obama, or anyone else associated with his campaign, ever denied any of the above? What is your point?

No point at all. The fact is that Obama is (despite his denials) closely associated with an unrepentant terrorist. You can make of that what you will. The repeated denials from his disciples that this is the case (when it demonstratively is) have passed tiresome and are into amusing.

[Lamar Mundane]

No point at all. The fact is that Obama is (despite his denials) closely associated with an unrepentant terrorist. You can make of that what you will. The repeated denials from his disciples that this is the case (when it demonstratively is) have passed tiresome and are into amusing.

I ask "Has Obama or anyone associated with his campaign ever denied this", and you say that's not the point. Then you say "The repeated denials from his disciples..." Which is it? Back up your assertions that Obama's disciples have repeatedly denied that he has had associations with Ayers.

[Shodan]

Jim has red hair.
Sarah has red hair.
Therefore, Jim and Sarah are twins.

Is that an accurate statement, Shodan?No, it isn't. Who associated with the McCain campaign has said that Obama is a terrorist?

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

The fact is that Obama is (despite his denials) closely associated with an unrepentant terrorist.

Waitaminnit, now: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Ayers_controversy#Interaction_between_Obama_and_Ayers)

Interaction between Obama and Ayers

Ayers and Dohrn hosted a "meet-and-greet" political meeting for Obama at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, where the Ayers and the Obamas lived. (The meeting has also been called a fundraising event.[7]) It was at this meeting that then State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Barack Obama as her chosen candidate for the 1996 Democratic primary.[8] Although the exact date of the meeting is not known, it was sometime in the second half of 1995, according to Ben Smith, a reporter for The Politico.[4] Chicagoan Maria Warren wrote in 2005 on her Musings & Migraines blog: "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."[4]

Obama served as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers was instrumental in starting. The board disbursed grants to schools and raised private matching funds while Ayers worked with the operational arm of the effort. Both attended some board meetings in common starting in 1995,[9][10] retreats, and at least one news conference together as the education program started. They continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 period when the program was operating.[10]

Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board,[1] which Ayers chaired for two years.[11] Laura S. Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund, said the small board had a collegial "friendly but businesslike" atmosphere, and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants.[2] The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.[1] One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle.[12] Ayers donated $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate campaign.[13]

In 2008, a spokesman for the Obama campaign said the last time Obama and Ayers had seen each other was when Obama was biking in the neighborhood in 2007 and crossed paths with Ayers. The spokesman said "The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false".[14]

How the fuck do you get "closely associated" out of any of that?!

[Lamar Mundane]

No, it isn't. Who associated with the McCain campaign has said that Obama is a terrorist?

Regards,
Shodan
Non sequitor. You were trying to fudge the point that if only facts were presented, then conclusions couldn't be false.
My point is that leander made the bare assertion that the article was not accurate. What we seem to have discovered is that, for those parts capable of being established as fact, it is completely accurate. You just don't like the conclusions.

Regards,
Shodan

Conclusions can be false, Shodan. They are not just opinions.

[stolichnaya]

Ayers is political poison and the Obama camp knows it. Why else would he dismiss his political mentor and long-time co-worker as "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and "not someone I exchange ideas with on a regular basis?" This about a guy appointed Obama as CAC's first chairman in 1995! Why not tell the truth?

Why isn't Obama bragging about his relationship with Ayers? Where is Ayers on the campaign trail if there is nothing to be ashamed of here? After all, Obama kicked off his first Senate campaign in Bill Ayers' living room!

Offhand, I can think of only two people who have tried to blow up the Pentagon - Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers. How many of you have even a passing acquaintance with anyone who's ever tried to blow up anything?!


Is it your view that Obama seeks to do harm to the United States of America, and he has gone about this by running for President, and once he is inaugurated, he will begin to work for the downfall of the country? If you believe that, then that's one thing, and at least this makes sense. I think it's insane, but at least it's internally consistent. If you do not sincerely believe that Obama wishes to harm the interests of the United States of America, then this is so much dishwater and handwaving.

[Jack Batty]

How the fuck do you get "closely associated" out of any of that?!

Or Stephe96's brilliant claim of "political mentor"? That one is truly reaching.

[Gangster Octopus]

once he is inaugurated, he will begin to work for the downfall of the country?

Don't be so skeptical, It worked for W.

[Sarahfeena]

Jim has red hair.
Sarah has red hair.
Therefore, Jim and Sarah are twins.

Is that an accurate statement, Shodan? In point of fact, I do not have red hair. If you start out with erroneous statements, you are bound to come up with an erroneous conclusion, so Shodan was trying to determine if the statements were factual or not. leander's statement was a bit fuzzy as to what it was that wasn't accurate.

[Weirddave]

Waitaminnit, now: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Ayers_controversy#Interaction_between_Obama_and_Ayers)



How the fuck do you get "closely associated" out of any of that?!

The linked op-ed makes a good case for it. You may not like it, but I haven't seen anyone touch the facts presented. Obama launched his political career from Ayres' living room for Christ's sake. As I said, one can make of it what they will, but downplaying or denying the facts makes one look stupid.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ayres is not a "terrorist." Terrorists by definition, target people. Ayres vandalized some empty rooms in government buildings and always went to great lengths to make sure that no human beings got hurt.

The facts are that Obama served on a couple of charity boards with a law abiding neighbor and an English professor who was once a radical (but non-violent) anti-war activist 40 years ago. The leap from that to "terrorist proxy" is asinine and childish....and desperate.

[Stephe96]

Or Stephe96's brilliant claim of "political mentor"? That one is truly reaching.

Please. I will use whatever term you prefer to describe the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, the man whose terrorist group, the Weather Underground, according to Wikipedia, "organized a riot in Chicago in 1969 and bombed buildings in the 1970s."

Have you ever stood in the living room of a person who tried to blow up anything, let alone the Pentagon? Barack Obama has.

But, again, which term would you prefer I use to describe their relationship?

[Gangster Octopus]

The linked op-ed makes a good case for it. You may not like it, but I haven't seen anyone touch the facts presented. Obama launched his political career from Ayres' living room for Christ's sake. As I said, one can make of it what they will, but downplaying or denying the facts makes one look stupid.


Not denying, but why does downplaying this fact make one look stupid? He launched his political career from an English professor and respected member of the communities living room, and has had little to do with the man and has not involved him in his political career since that one monent 13 years ago. What is your implication, exactly??

[Shodan]

How the fuck do you get "closely associated" out of any of that?!
Probably from the parts where Ayers hosted fund raisers for Obama, got him appointed to the board of directors of his foundation, served with him, served on other boards with him, attended panel discussions with him, held press conferences with him, etc.

No doubt, apart from that, they were total strangers. :D

Non sequitor.Yes, it was, which is why your argument is so easy to shoot down.

Unless you can show where somebody associated with this thread, the article in question, or the McCain campaign is saying that Obama is a terrorist, then your rather feeble comeback about twins is a a strawman.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gangster Octopus]

Please. I will use whatever term you prefer to describe the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, the man whose terrorist group, the Weather Underground, according to Wikipedia, "organized a riot in Chicago in 1969 and bombed buildings in the 1970s."

Have you ever stood in the living room of a person who tried to blow up anything, let alone the Pentagon? Barack Obama has.

But, again, which term would you prefer I use to describe their relationship?


Oh for crying out loud, cut the BS. YOU used the term "politcal mentor". It was YOUR choice of words and you obviously meant something by it. If you wish to retract that designation then do so. Don't weasel out of what you said, you pick your own words here.

Do you honestly think Ayers was a political mentor or not? Time to own up to your words or admit it was a smear.

[Stephe96]

Ayres is not a "terrorist." Terrorists by definition, target people. Ayres vandalized some empty rooms in government buildings and always went to great lengths to make sure that no human beings got hurt.

The facts are that Obama served on a couple of charity boards with a law abiding neighbor and an English professor who was once a radical (but non-violent) anti-war activist 40 years ago. The leap from that to "terrorist proxy" is asinine and childish....and desperate.

Nice try, but bzzzzt. Again, from the Wikipedia entry:

However, according to Mark Rudd, one of the founders of the Weathermen, the group that constructed the bomb that exploded prematurely in Greenwich Village had planned to set it off at a dance in an Army NCO club, which presumably would have had lethal consequences. [1] Their activities have often been characterized as domestic terrorism,[9] including a later description by the FBI.[10]

[Stephe96]

Oh for crying out loud, cut the BS. YOU used the term "politcal mentor". It was YOUR choice of words and you obviously meant something by it. If you wish to retract that designation then do so. Don't weasel out of what you said, you pick your own words here.

Do you honestly think Ayers was a political mentor or not? Time to own up to your words or admit it was a smear.

Fine. I'm comfortable with 'political mentor.' What term are comfortable with? Just out of curiousity?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Obama launched his political career from Ayres' living room for Christ's sake.
Do you get ALL your talking points from Sean Hannity?

When he was starting out in politics, some people hosted a fundraiser for him at Bill Ayers' house. So. Fucking. What? How does that make them "close associations?" Are you a close association of everyone whose home you've ever attended a party at?

Do you think that Barack Obama has anti-American or "terrorist" aspirations? Yes or no. If the answer is no, then you're admitting this whole thing is a contrived, phony issue.

It'sd also not getting any political traction, by the way, no matter how hard the Hannitys of the world try to push it. Frankly, when it comes to unsavory assocaitions, it doesn't get any more embarrasing than this (http://thehostess.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mccain_bush-hug.jpg)

[stolichnaya]

"mind-controller"

"anti-American instructor"

"terrorist sensei"

[Whack-a-Mole]

My point is that leander made the bare assertion that the article was not accurate. What we seem to have discovered is that, for those parts capable of being established as fact, it is completely accurate. You just don't like the conclusions.


Indeed and that is ultimately where the problem lies. For instance:

Franklin Roosevelt associated with Josef Stalin. (fact)

Therefore, Roosevelt was a pinko commie bastard. (assertion)

Bit of a reach you ask me. Despite this association with Ayers can you point to any examples of Obama espousing radical, terrorist policies? Have any of his actions ever indicated any such thing?

[Stephe96]

Do you get ALL your talking points from Sean Hannity?

Uh...my 'talking points' come from Wikipedia and BrainGlutton's previous post.

[Lamar Mundane]

Unless you can show where somebody associated with this thread, the article in question, or the McCain campaign is saying that Obama is a terrorist, then your rather feeble comeback about twins is a a strawman.

Regards,
Shodan
You appear to be arguing with something that exists only in your own mind. I've never claimed that anyone said Obama is a terrorist, in fact I've never mentioned the word terrorist. You pulled that out of thin air.

My only claim was that an author's conclusions can be completely false even is their premises are true. For some unexplicable reason you turned that into an argument about terrorism.


In point of fact, I do not have red hair.
??? I never said you did. You guys should try to argue the actuals statements made rather than ones that just pop into your head.

[kenner116]

Have you ever stood in the living room of a person who tried to blow up anything, let alone the Pentagon? Barack Obama has.


I've never been in a room with Senator McCain, but I'm pretty sure he dropped a fair number of bombs on North Vietnam.

[Gangster Octopus]

Nevermind

[Leaper]

Since none of the conservatives here have articulated this position (I have no idea why), let's toss this guy's (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/09/obama-and-ayers.html) opinion out there:

"And the suggestion is not that Obama endorses Ayers' domestic terrorism; the suggestion is that Obama and Ayers share a hard-left educational philosophy, that Obama has an odd taste in friends, and that Obama has been lying about his past."

Myself, my reactions are "so what," "so what," and "not really/unproven." But I thought I'd at least get it out there as a possible talking point.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Uh...my 'talking points' come from Wikipedia and BrainGlutton's previous post.
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Weirddave. That "launched his political career from Bill Ayres' living room" line is a direct Sean Hannity mantra.

[Hamlet]

Which of the factual assertions of the article do you believe are untrue?

Are you asserting That the CAC was not founded by Ayers? That Obama was never chairman of the board? That Ayers was never an ex officio member of the board that Obama chaired? Etc.?If you are merely asserting that one should not draw any conclusions from what has been discovered about Obama's background, that is one thing. If you are disputing the facts as asserted, that is another.

Regards,
Shodan1) The CAC did not "pour more than $100 million into the hands of "radical education activists." (whatever the fuck those are). It gave millions to 210 different public schools and public school supporters in Chicago to help children learn and have better lives.

2) "The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers," While Ayers wrote the grant application, he was not, in any way, the sole "brainchild" of the CAC. It actually started with the decentralization of schools in Chicago in 1998 and involved numerous people, including, most importantly, Anne Hallett and Warren Chapman.

3) "Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home." That one meeting did not "launch" Obama's first run for Senate, it had been planned for awhile before then.

4) "Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC." A gross simplification. It's like saying the janitor of the GM plant and Bill Ford are partners. They were both involved in the same program, yes, but pretending they were "partners" is more rhetorical bullshit.

5) "In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy." There were actually 3, not 2, parts to the CAC. Kurtz, as he is wont to do, is wrong.

6) "Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994." Ayers was one of 5 people who OK'ed Obama, but he had nothing to do with getting Obama to that point.

7) "Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval." More bullshit. The CAC was not Mr. Ayers' to found, he was one person among hundreds, involved in a program that tried to help public schools. And he wasn't the "guiding spirit". The CAC was founded according to the principles of, and was run pursuant to, the Annenberg Challenge.

If you're interested, you can read about it by clicking here (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/p62.pdf). It includes the principles and goals of the Annenberg Challenge, which, oddly enough, Ayers had nothing to do with.

8) "The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism." Another lie. The CAC was bound to use the principles and goals of the Annenberg Challenge. Read the link.

9) "CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice." Again, Ayers had nothing to do with setting the principles and goals of the Annenberg Challenge.

10) "Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)" Not every proposal focused on math/science was turned down, just as not every partner was a "far-left community organizers". Almost a third were Chicago colleges and universities. Another quarter were arts and cultural institutions like the Chicago Syphony and Suzuki school for young musicians. And another quarter were education services and education reform groups. Only 15% were "community organizations" and oddly enough ACORN wasn't listed on them. Click here for the rest of the article (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/p62II.pdf)

You know, I'd keep going, but at this point, it's just kinda academic. Kurtz's "opinion" piece is just the same recycled garbage, with a few lies thrown in for good measure.

[Weirddave]

Dance, puppets, dance!


Make those excuses, deny those facts, spin like a motherfucker!



Pathetic.

[stolichnaya]

"anarchist puppetmaster"

[Hamlet]

Dance, puppets, dance!


Make those excuses, deny those facts, spin like a motherfucker!



Pathetic.Dave, I like you. But you're being a jagoff with idiotic, substanceless posts like this. Just so you know.

[jayjay]

It may all be true. *shrug*

You know what? I don't give a flying fuck. Nobody under the age of 50 who isn't a wingnut gives a damn about Ayers, the Weathermen, radical leftists, or the 60s.

Obama is a demonstrably better presidential candidate than John McCain. That's all I care about. If Obama had consorted with Zero Mostel, Eugene V. Debs and Squeeky Fromme, I would not care. All I care about is keeping a Republican out of the White House for the next indeterminate number of years. Give me candidates with firmly demonstrated ties to the Sierra Club, the American Communist Party and the Weather Underground. I don't give a shit! As long as they're Democrats (or, failing that, at least competent and not in the pocket of people who are better off than I'll ever be and determined to be more so by walking on my fucking back).

[Sarahfeena]

??? I never said you did. You guys should try to argue the actuals statements made rather than ones that just pop into your head. That part was a joke.

Love,
Sarah (who actually has brown hair)

[JohnBckWLD]

OMG! They served on the same board? Get a rope! :rolleyes:Someone took you seriously in OR (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlnR7kQP7tXQKA0872BAweYKqPFQD93D6CUG0)

[Stephe96]

Liberals never fail to amuse me; Bush called Ken Lay "Kenny Boy" so, of course, that meant he was at least partially responsible for the collapse of Enron. But Barack Obama spending his early political career working alongside a domestic terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon? Well, that means nothing! Move along, folks. Nothing to see here!:rolleyes:

[Stephe96]

It may all be true. *shrug*

You know what? I don't give a flying fuck.).

At least you're honest about it. Gotta respect that.

[Jack Batty]

But, again, which term would you prefer I use to describe their relationship?

stolichnaya is hitting them out of the park:

"mind-controller"
"anti-American instructor"
"terrorist sensei" - my personal favorite
"anarchist puppetmaster"

They all sound about as credible as "political mentor." So stick with that one, if you must. Just as long as we know where you're coming from (which we do).

[Pashnish Ewing]

But Barack Obama spending his early political career working alongside a domestic terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon? Well, that means nothing!Okay, pretty please, with sugar on top, will you tell us what you think it means?

[Stephe96]

stolichnaya is hitting them out of the park:

"mind-controller"
"anti-American instructor"
"terrorist sensei" - my personal favorite
"anarchist puppetmaster"

They all sound about as credible as "political mentor." So stick with that one, if you must. Just as long as we know where you're coming from (which we do).

You honestly cannot seriously describe Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

[Marley23]

Liberals never fail to amuse me;
Ooh, tough break. I don't think the condescension card is nearly as effective following Hamlet's long post. Perhaps you'd care to respond to it?

[Magiver]

You've got a presidential candidate who was fascinated with communism as a teenager hook up with a "non-terrorist" bomber communist (with a little “c”) and uses this lowlife to launch his career. Said candidate then tries to distance this connection and is given a complete pass by the media.

Obama is not what he appears. His connection to Ayers was not an accident nor was his connection to Frank Marshall Davis. In fact the 2 men connect Obama the child to Obama the man. He's a left wing un-vetted opportunist whose only job has been to run for office.

He's tried to distance his past associations as coincidental when in reality he sought these people out. If he were a Republican the media would have crawled up his ass with an electron microscope.

[Gangster Octopus]

Liberals never fail to amuse me; Bush called Ken Lay "Kenny Boy" so, of course, that meant he was at least partially responsible for the collapse of Enron. But Barack Obama spending his early political career working alongside a domestic terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon? Well, that means nothing! Move along, folks. Nothing to see here!:rolleyes:

Well, there is a teeny bit of difference between being friends with someone at the same time they used political influence and shady accounting to enrich themselves at the expense of others, and

working with someone who 25 years in the past, during a different time and when he was a different person, was involved in some "terrorist" activity, but when Obama knew him was actually NOT a terrorist and was, actually, a respected member of the community and, dun dun dun, an English Professor. That they worked together, albeit hardly side by freaking side, to actually try and improve the schools of South Chicago.

Yeah I completely see the moral equivalency here.

[stolichnaya]

You honestly cannot seriously describe Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

I am trying.

"traitorous consigliere"?

[Chefguy]

You honestly cannot seriously describe Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

How about something non-inflammatory like "colleague" or "associate" or "fellow board member" or "fellow community activist"? Or is it just your goal to stir shit up?

[Weirddave]

Dave, I like you. But you're being a jagoff with idiotic, substanceless posts like this. Just so you know.

It seems to me that the ones making the substanceless posts are the ones who refuse to simply acknowledge the facts that they can't refute. I never called Obama a terrorist, never said he was anti-American or any of that garbage. I simply stated "here are the facts, it's up to each person to decide if they matter for themselves". Since the facts aren't in dispute, what we get is the usual spinmasters in here attempting to explain them away, diminish them, dismiss them as "talking points" or outright lie about them. They're puppets on a chain. If one says anything about Obama other than he's bigger than the Beatles and twice as wonderful, their chain jerks and they foam at the mouth and attack. No substance. No thought. Nothing but partisan bullshit. Here's what isn't in dispute in the least:


Obama is a close* associate of an unrepentant terrorist.

That is the plain, unadulterated FACT of the matter. The rest....it's up to the individual to draw their own conclusions. Jayjay said it doesn't matter to him. OK, fine. Personally, it matters a little bit to me as it speaks to Obama's poor judgment, but it wouldn't decide me one way or the other. Anyone else? Well, that's, as I said, up to them, isn't it?


*Meets my definition of close, but since that's subjective, opinions may vary.

[elucidator]

(too late)

[Gangster Octopus]

You honestly cannot seriously describe Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

Well since you wish to boil it down to a word or two, how about "past working acquaintance".

[Jack Batty]

You honestly cannot seriously describe Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

How about, "contemporary" and even that's a stretch.

What? Not damning enough for you? Sorry, them's the breaks.

You are making it out like Ayers took Obama, Bill Sykes-like, off the streets and taught every thing he needed to no about modern politics from how to point with his thumb to how to construct a pipe-bomb.

Their connection is tenuous at best. To say they are so closely linked is tantamount to saying that I'm closely linked with the IT guy who reset my password for me a couple of times last month.

[Jack Batty]

And by the wayStephe96 , why do I have to clarify what you are claiming? You are the one contructiong bullshit titles here.

[Hamlet]

It seems to me that the ones making the substanceless posts are the ones who refuse to simply acknowledge the facts that they can't refute. I never called Obama a terrorist, never said he was anti-American or any of that garbage. I simply stated "here are the facts, it's up to each person to decide if they matter for themselves". Since the facts aren't in dispute, what we get is the usual spinmasters in here attempting to explain them away, diminish them, dismiss them as "talking points" or outright lie about them.I gotta ask, did you even read his article and my post? Because your idea that "the facts aren't in dispute" is patently false. They're puppets on a chain. If one says anything about Obama other than he's bigger than the Beatles and twice as wonderful, their chain jerks and they foam at the mouth and attack. No substance. No thought. Nothing but partisan bullshit.As opposed to your insightful, fact filled posts? The irony..... it burns.

Here's what isn't in dispute in the least:


Obama is a close* associate of an unrepentant terrorist.

...


*Meets my definition of close, but since that's subjective, opinions may vary.It is absolutely stunning to me that you can, with one post, contradict yourself and apparently not even notice it. What kind of wilfull blindness does that require?

Here's what isn't in dispute: Obama had minimal contact with a man interested in furthering educational reform in Chicago.

See how easy this faux "fact" game you're playing is?

[Lightnin']

Obama is not what he appears. His connection to Ayers was not an accident nor was his connection to Frank Marshall Davis. In fact the 2 men connect Obama the child to Obama the man. He's a left wing un-vetted opportunist whose only job has been to run for office.


You're contradicting yourself here.

If Obama is, in fact, a "left wing un-vetted opportunist whose only job has been to run for office", then why would he associate himself with a "known terrorist"? For the political influence? Please.

I'd really like to see an answer to the question that's been asked in EVERY Ayers/Obama thread- are you seriously implying that Obama is a secret terrorist intent on blowing up the White House once he gets into it?

[Weirddave]

Here's what isn't in dispute: Obama had minimal contact with a man interested in furthering educational reform in Chicago.



Thank you for proving my point. The only thing you're disputing is the degree of closeness of their relationship.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Thank you for proving my point. The only thing you're disputing is the degree of closeness of their relationship.

Did you read Hamlet's post at the end of the first page? Seems to me he is pretty much disputing the "facts" of the entire WSJ opinion piece as well as your assessment of the facts. If you think Hamlet's points are wrong then point out where.

[Stephe96]

Thank you for proving my point. The only thing you're disputing is the degree of closeness of their relationship.

Great point. And can we all agree that Obama was.....um, lying....about the relationship when he laughably claimed Ayers was "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

I mean, there are plenty of guys who "live in my neighborhood" who have never hired me, appointed me to boards, sat with me on boards, and hosted fundraisers for me in their living rooms. :D

[Mr. Moto]

I'd like for people all across the spectrum to stop kidding themselves.

Sure, Obama and Ayers weren't all that close - it was a working relationship. But the relationship was far closer than that admitted to in Obama's debate with Hillary Clinton when he dismissed Ayers as just a neighbor. I don't think anyone here will dispute that.

I also think it is really a stretch to just call Ayers a professor - he remains unrepentant about his activities and says he didn't do enough. He remains pretty far out there on the political fringes - he isn't what we would consider a mainstream Democrat, to say the least. Mainstream Democrats don't generally get photographed standing on a flag.

His right, I suppose, but let's face it, that isn't the image Obama wants to be associated with, and indeed he spent considerable time during the campaign denouncing Ayers' actions, while not going into detail about their relationship.

This article by Mike Kinsley (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html) sums it up well - Kinsley is broadly dismissive of Ayers and Dohrn both, while noting that if Obama is guilty of dealing with them, it is a guilt most of Chicago shares. I think there is a lot to this, and I still wonder why Ayers gets to play in politics while other unrepentant violent felons wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a responsible candidate.

If anyone has any fault with anything I've posted here, chime up - but I think I played it straight.

[Weirddave]

Did you read Hamlet's post at the end of the first page? Seems to me he is pretty much disputing the "facts" of the entire WSJ opinion piece as well as your assessment of the facts. If you think Hamlet's points are wrong then point out where.

So, Hamlet posts a bunch of unsupported interpretations of the CAC and his word is sacrosanct, the author of the op-ed piece provides his interpretation of CAC's activities and he's a lying dog. Oh no, there's no bias driven analysis going on here, none at all. The author of the opinion piece is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (which seems to be somewhat conservative in his bias, I'm not going to spend an hour researching exactly where on the spectrum they fall) and his conclusions are based upon his study of CAC records. Hamlet's got....what bona fides? He does link to a document that's mainly a report on how the CAC failed miserably at it's stated purpose, but other than that? Calling this a he said/he said situation is being generous.

The point, however, is Obama's association with Ayres. In my opinion it has been demonstrated to be significant and long term. Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright was significant and long term. The Obama camp is doing it's best to deny and downplay this because both of them are unpleasant people with offensive beliefs that have the potential to negatively hurt a politician running for office. I understand why they are doing it. I understand why a mass murderer shaves, puts on a suit and shows up in court with a bible in his hand. I just don't discount the history behind either one.

[Hamlet]

Thank you for proving my point. The only thing you're disputing is the degree of closeness of their relationship.*sigh*

If that is the conclusion you reached from my posts, I fear there is no point in any further explanation to you. Enjoy your partisan hackery.

[DoctorJ]

"Close" is such a subjective word. I'm sure there are hundreds of people who could have at least similar lines drawn between them and Obama; you just don't get to where he is otherwise.

But let's say Ayres really is in Obama's Top 8. Regardless of what Ayres did 30 years ago, by the time Obama knew him he was devoted to charitable work toward goals that Obama happened to strongly agree with. Should Obama have shunned him even if it meant progress wouldn't be made toward those goals?

If anyone should have shunned Ayres, it should have been the people who worked with him in the early 80s when he first emerged from underground and started to become involved in education and urban activism. But they didn't, and by the mid-90s he was a strong player in Chicago philanthropy. Obama could have made a political point, refused to associate with Ayres, and passed up the chance to do good work. Instead he decided (as many before him already had) that the past was the past and progress was progress.

[Shodan]

1) The CAC did not "pour more than $100 million into the hands of "radical education activists." (whatever the fuck those are). It gave millions to 210 different public schools and public school supporters in Chicago to help children learn and have better lives.I was talking about factual assertions. You are merely spinning, just opposite in direction to the author of the piece.

2) "The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers," While Ayers wrote the grant application, he was not, in any way, the sole "brainchild" of the CAC. It actually started with the decentralization of schools in Chicago in 1998 and involved numerous people, including, most importantly, Anne Hallett and Warren Chapman.I notice you had to introduce a new word into the assertion to deny it. He wrote the grant application and co-chaired the policy board. But it wasn't his brainchild. Oooookay.

3) "Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home." That one meeting did not "launch" Obama's first run for Senate, it had been planned for awhile before then. Again, a distinction without a difference. I assume you would agree that launching a rocket also takes planning ahead of time. However, it would be incorrect to the point of incoherence to say that the rocket had been launched long before it was built.

4) "Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC." A gross simplification. It's like saying the janitor of the GM plant and Bill Ford are partners. They were both involved in the same program, yes, but pretending they were "partners" is more rhetorical bullshit.
No, it would be like saying that those who serve on the board of directors are partners with the chairman.
5) "In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy." There were actually 3, not 2, parts to the CAC. Kurtz, as he is wont to do, is wrong. No, he is saying that there were two key parts. Ayers, the former terrorist was head of one. Obama was the head of another.

6) "Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994." Ayers was one of 5 people who OK'ed Obama, but he had nothing to do with getting Obama to that point.This essentially doesn't mean anything. Ayers was part of the group that assembled the baord; but he had nothing to do with getting Obama onto the board. It's not even spin; it is more of the liberal "that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is" stuff when they are confronted with inconvenient facts.

7) "Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval." More bullshit. The CAC was not Mr. Ayers' to found, he was one person among hundreds, involved in a program that tried to help public schools. And he wasn't the "guiding spirit". The CAC was founded according to the principles of, and was run pursuant to, the Annenberg Challenge. In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.
8) "The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism." Another lie. The CAC was bound to use the principles and goals of the Annenberg Challenge. Read the link.See above.

9) "CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice." Again, Ayers had nothing to do with setting the principles and goals of the Annenberg Challenge.Right, right - members of the board have no influence on the organizations they create and direct. :)

10) "Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)" Not every proposal focused on math/science was turned down, just as not every partner was a "far-left community organizers".
I didn't see the word "every" in the quote. One wonders why you needed to add it.

Regards,
Shodan

[jayjay]

Enjoy your partisan hackery.

The funny part about that is that Weirddave says he's a Democrat.

[Gangster Octopus]

Can we please suspend this debate so we can all work on the financial crisis?

[jayjay]

It's not even spin; it is more of the liberal "that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is" stuff when they are confronted with inconvenient facts.

I understand that, as a Republican, you should not be expected to recognize such things as nuance or shades of gray, but you could at least not make the fact that Democrats actually recognize the existence of those instead of lumping the world into black or white like Republicans generally do sound like some sort of defect.

[42fish]

I hear that for 5-1/2 years, John McCain was closely associated with known Communists.

[DoctorJ]

I also think it is really a stretch to just call Ayers a professor - he remains unrepentant about his activities and says he didn't do enough.
He has specifically said that he wasn't referring to violence when he said he "didn't do enough", but to overall efforts to stop the war.

I'm not sure how right-wingers and presumably Second Amendment advocates can be so appalled by the idea that violence can be a justifiable response when the government goes too far. After all, one of their regular talking heads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy) is the guy who reminded us that when ATF agents bust into your house it's important to aim for the head. Aren't they just disagreeing on what type of violence is appropriate and what constitutes the government going too far?

[Magiver]

You're contradicting yourself here.

If Obama is, in fact, a "left wing un-vetted opportunist whose only job has been to run for office", then why would he associate himself with a "known terrorist"? For the political influence? Please.

I'd really like to see an answer to the question that's been asked in EVERY Ayers/Obama thread- are you seriously implying that Obama is a secret terrorist intent on blowing up the White House once he gets into it? What's the conflict? He was friends with a communist as a child and used a communist wanna-be to launch his career in Chicago. You can't get more left wing than Obama and his past associations bear that out. As to why he would associate with these people is the million-dollar question. He’s tried to distance himself from them. You'll have to ask him yourself because he's getting a huge pass by the media.

[jayjay]

Awww...isn't that cute? They still think Obama is the one getting the free pass from the media!

[Magiver]

I hear that for 5-1/2 years, John McCain was closely associated with known Communists. You're making fun of someone who was tortured as a POW? Seriously?

[Mr. Moto]

He has specifically said that he wasn't referring to violence when he said he "didn't do enough", but to overall efforts to stop the war.

You can understand why, given his history, people didn't immediately grasp that fact. Even so, I won't press it too far - it isn't terribly important to my overall point.

[jayjay]

You're making fun of someone who was tortured as a POW? Seriously?

Because McCain is so modest about it that he hardly talks about it at all. I'm sure such an American hero as McCain would never use his experiences in Vietnam as a catch-all excuse and diversion or anything. Never!

[Sarahfeena]

"Close" is such a subjective word. I'm sure there are hundreds of people who could have at least similar lines drawn between them and Obama; you just don't get to where he is otherwise.

But let's say Ayres really is in Obama's Top 8. Regardless of what Ayres did 30 years ago, by the time Obama knew him he was devoted to charitable work toward goals that Obama happened to strongly agree with. Should Obama have shunned him even if it meant progress wouldn't be made toward those goals?

If anyone should have shunned Ayres, it should have been the people who worked with him in the early 80s when he first emerged from underground and started to become involved in education and urban activism. But they didn't, and by the mid-90s he was a strong player in Chicago philanthropy. Obama could have made a political point, refused to associate with Ayres, and passed up the chance to do good work. Instead he decided (as many before him already had) that the past was the past and progress was progress. This is why I don't buy his "change" claim, though. His history here in Chicago is that he has been willing to associate himself with anything or anybody, if it will help further his political career. He wants to fight corruption in government? Great! But he's had ample opportunity to fight the horribly corrupt Chicago & Cook County Democratic machine, but he hasn't, apparently because it was politically expedient for him not to. I'm not the least concerned that he's a communist terrorist, or has those leanings. I AM concerned that his claim to be a reformer is nothing but an empty promise.

[Gangster Octopus]

OK, I am here to concede every fact about Obama and Ayers, they knew each other, they worked on some common cuases together with respect to improving educational opportunities in Chicago?

It is true...true...true!!

So what?

[Hamlet]

I was talking about factual assertions. You are merely spinning, just opposite in direction to the author of the piece.His entire piece is spin. The "factual" assertions are de minimis.

notice you had to introduce a new word into the assertion to deny it. He wrote the grant application and co-chaired the policy board. But it wasn't his brainchild. Oooookay.Let me get this straight before we go any further. I do not expect anything I post to change YOUR mind. You proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that NO AMOUNT OF FACTS will do that. You feel that writing a grant application and being on the board makes one a "brainchild". The FACT is that CAC existed before Ayers, the national Annenberg Challenge had nothing to do with him, and there were two other people with more influence than him. That is not a brainchild. Again, a distinction without a difference. I assume you would agree that launching a rocket also takes planning ahead of time. However, it would be incorrect to the point of incoherence to say that the rocket had been launched long before it was built.Again, you must understand I am not trying to convince YOU of anything. I'm merely pointing out that one meeting at Ayers' house did not "launch" his political career. It was going on before then, it was going on after that, and that one meeting had little to nothing to do with it.No, it would be like saying that those who serve on the board of directors are partners with the chairman.No, it's like saying one vice president is partners with another vice president. Hey, if that's your idea of partners, have at it. No, he is saying that there were two key parts. Ayers, the former terrorist was head of one. Obama was the head of another.I know what he is saying. What he is saying is factually wrong. There were 3 parts to the CAC, Kurtz left out the research arm. This essentially doesn't mean anything. Ayers was part of the group that assembled the baord; but he had nothing to do with getting Obama onto the board. It's not even spin; it is more of the liberal "that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is" stuff when they are confronted with inconvenient facts.And, again, I'm pointing out the bullshit that Kurtz is spewing. There isn't any "inconvenient facts", there is only Kurtz's bullshit spin. See above.That's it? C'mon. I show you, I cite to, and I point out that Kurtz is lying about the largest part of his article, and you give me a "See above"?

Here's the thing, the CAC was not Ayer's "brainchild". Ayers was not the CAC's "guiding spirit". Kurtz is making that shit up. The CAC existed without Ayers, it followed principles and goal from the Annenberg Challenge, which had nothing to do with Ayers. The CAC was more than Ayers. Kurtz just wants smallminded people to think that it was Ayer's plaything. And some small minded people are more than willing to buy it.

Right, right - members of the board have no influence on the organizations they create and direct.And now you need to build strawmen. I was wondering when you would get around to that particular fallacy. My patience is rewarded.

Saying "CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice" is wrong. The CAC translated, as it was required, the policies and goal of the Annenberg Challenge, not the policies and goals of Mr. Ayers.

Ayers was just one person. The CAC was thousands. Ayers didn't found it, he didn't create it, he didn't run it alone. Did he have influence? Sure. But Kurtz is protraying him as some kind of Capo, when, in fact, he was just one small part of the entire thing.
I didn't see the word "every" in the quote. One wonders why you needed to add it.I needed to add it to correct the mis-perceptions and spin that flood Kurtz's piece. He wants to pretend that Ayers was solely responsible for CAC and that the CAC was meant to support "radical education activists". He focuses on the minutiae (Ayers and ACORN) and ignores the great majority (Hallett, Chapman, the other board members, the Partners, the schools and pretty much everything else) It works for what it is.... spin.

It's amusing that Kurtz spend all this time going over those papers, and all he has to show for it is spin, lies, misinformation, and half-truths. No wonder you like it.

[BrainGlutton]

You honestly cannot seriously describe Obama's relationship with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?

Oh, it's easy to describe: Ayers is an Obama supporter. Just like millions of Illinoisians and, more recently, tens of millions of Americans.

[42fish]

You're making fun of someone who was tortured as a POW? Seriously?

Actually, I'm making fun of the belief that Obama and Ayers serving on the board of the same organization is such a close relation that it constitutes proof of, well, pretty much anything.

Although, I did recently hear that for 5-1/2 years, McCain had a close relationship with Commies who tortured our brave soldiers.

[Frostillicus]

I know the author is a conservative, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

This is where you made your first mistake.

[Quartz]

Looks like it's a lot of hot air over a couple of idiots, then. I still think that it's a negative for Obama that he hasn't dealt with this more trenchantly, but then I've heard a lot of things about Chicago politics.

[foolsguinea]

Speaking as a leftist, I would love for Obama's association with Ayers to mean Obama is a radicalized small-c communist.

But then I remember how Bolsheviks failed at Marxism, & had serpents & opportunists throughout. Equating Obama's politics with Ayers's due to them working in the same group is fallacious, even if Ayers had brought in Obama himself (which Kurtz acknowledges he did not).

[Magiver]

Actually, I'm making fun of the belief that Obama and Ayers serving on the board of the same organization is such a close relation that it constitutes proof of, well, pretty much anything.

Well that and he launched his career from Ayer's home. That suggests they knew each other well.

[Hamlet]

I still think that it's a negative for Obama that he hasn't dealt with this more trenchantly, but then I've heard a lot of things about Chicago politics.I don't like Ayers, I think he should be in prison, and it was wrong of University of Illinois at Chicago to hire him.

But pretending that serving on a charitable board with him or going to his house, decades after his reprehensible actions says anything important about Obama is nothing but partisanship.

[dropzone]

"Obama served as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a large education-related nonprofit organization that Ayers was instrumental in starting. "

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created by noted commie rat Walter Annenberg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg) An obvious communist front!

:rolleyes:

[stolichnaya]

Well that and he launched his career from Ayer's home. That suggests they knew each other well.

"Career-launcher"

[Weirddave]

*sigh*

If that is the conclusion you reached from my posts, I fear there is no point in any further explanation to you. Enjoy your partisan hackery.

Please illustrate, using quotes from this thread, what exactly I have said that is A)partisan and/or b)hackery.

I'm waiting.

[Hamlet]

Please illustrate, using quotes from this thread, what exactly I have said that is A)partisan and/or b)hackery.

I'm waiting.See that Search Function? Type in Weirddave in the spot that says User Name. Then change the one that says Show as threads to Show As posts, and BINGO. There you go.

Seriously, do you think:

"Dance, puppets, dance!

Make those excuses, deny those facts, spin like a motherfucker!

Pathetic."

is anything BUT partisan hackery? Not one fact, not one ounce of substance, just an inane, partisanly biased, ad hominum.

If you need more, you can also look at these gems:

"The repeated denials from his disciples that this is the case (when it demonstratively is) have passed tiresome and are into amusing."

and

"Hamlet posts a bunch of unsupported interpretations of the CAC and his word is sacrosanct, the author of the op-ed piece provides his interpretation of CAC's activities and he's a lying dog. Oh no, there's no bias driven analysis going on here, none at all."

"They're puppets on a chain. If one says anything about Obama other than he's bigger than the Beatles and twice as wonderful, their chain jerks and they foam at the mouth and attack. No substance. No thought."

Hell, that's not even touching on the parts of posts of yours that are pure spin with very little factual basis, like

"Obama launched his political career from Ayres' living room for Christ's sake."

and

"Since the facts aren't in dispute,..."

and

"The only thing you're disputing is the degree of closeness of their relationship."

[DoctorJ]

What's the conflict? He was friends with a communist as a child and used a communist wanna-be to launch his career in Chicago. You can't get more left wing than Obama and his past associations bear that out.
Ah, red-baiting--the little black dress of Republican politics. Sure, they might update their wardrobes with new looks like gay-baiting and Muslim-baiting, but the classics never go out of style.
As to why he would associate with these people is the million-dollar question.I and several other people have offered up many reasons why he would associate with Ayers.
You'll have to ask him yourself because he's getting a huge pass by the media.Or you could look up his interview with Bill O'Reilly, where he answered many questions on this issue directly. Or any of several other interviews where he has done so.

[Weirddave]

All of those comments were directed at the content (or conspicuous lack thereof) of the posts trying to deny the facts. There is nothing partisan about that. It can be upsetting when someone points out that you're a naked emperor, but it's not partisan. The last 2 statements you quoted are simply true. Try again.

[Hamlet]

All of those comments were directed at the content (or conspicuous lack thereof) of the posts trying to deny the facts. There is nothing partisan about that. It can be upsetting when someone points out that you're a naked emperor, but it's not partisan. The last 2 statements you quoted are simply true. Try again.Dodge and weave, Dave. Dodge and weave.

[MEBuckner]

you're being a jagoff
Moderator's Warning: Hamlet, this is not appropriate for this forum. Leave the personal insults in the Pit (or off the boards entirely).

[elucidator]

Ah, red-baiting--the little black dress of Republican politics....

This line has been stolen. Do not use this line again without acknowledging that it is mine, because I stole it.

[leander]

I can't imagine anyone wasting their time arguing with "Regards, Shodan" after all these years.

[Sampiro]

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created by noted commie rat Walter Annenberg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg) An obvious communist front!


Who also funded FactCheck.org. They've been in on this for a while, even starting a "non partisan" website to assure us that Obama speaks the truth.

[elucidator]

Hell, I wish the left could pull off a conspiracy like that! That would be groovy.

[Shodan]

I can't imagine anyone wasting their time arguing with "Regards, Shodan" after all these years.

Especially not without any facts to back you up.

Regards,
Shodan

[Finagle]

Question. According to Wikipedia, Bill Ayers wrote his "Fugitive Days" in 2001. Obama's relationship with Ayers (whatever it was), started in the mid-90's. Just how well-known was Ayer's past? Would Obama have been expected to know the details?
There's a difference between consorting with an ex-radical English professor with a long publication record in educational theory and consorting with "an unrepentant terrorist bomber".

I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that if you met Bill Ayers in 1995, he wouldn't start off the conversation with "Hi. I bombed the Pentagon 25 years ago. Want to radicalize some pre-schoolers?"

[Mr. Moto]

It was well known enough. I read about Ayers at considerable length in David Horowitz's Destrustive Generation book around 1990, and that wasn't the first place I saw him mentioned, nor the last.

It was certainly news when he came out of hiding.

I'll say again - if this had been a right-wing bomber, nobody would have given this clown the time of day. He had fashionable political attitudes, tough, and was the son of a highly placed Chicago muckety-muck (head of Con-Ed, friend of Mayor Daley). Tom Ayers managed his son's rehabilitation into polite society - and I guess we're supposed to take Ayers seriously now when he stands on the flag.

This is why Kinsley has nothing but contempt for Ayers and for Bernardine Dohrn, who simultaneously expressed contempt for the court system while applying for the bar. His assessment, which I posted above, is probably the fairest one, and those people excusing Ayers really ought to read it.

[Hamlet]

It was well known enough. I read about Ayers at considerable length in David Horowitz's Destrustive Generation book around 1990, and that wasn't the first place I saw him mentioned, nor the last.

It was certainly news when he came out of hiding.I was living in Chicago when he was hired by University of Illinois - Chicago, and was against the hiring. I don't like the man, his actions decades ago, or the prosecutorial misconduct that kept him out of jail.I'll say again - if this had been a right-wing bomber, nobody would have given this clown the time of day. He had fashionable political attitudes, tough, and was the son of a highly placed Chicago muckety-muck (head of Con-Ed, friend of Mayor Daley). Tom Ayers managed his son's rehabilitation into polite society - and I guess we're supposed to take Ayers seriously now when he stands on the flag.

This is why Kinsley has nothing but contempt for Ayers and for Bernardine Dohrn, who simultaneously expressed contempt for the court system while applying for the bar. His assessment, which I posted above, is probably the fairest one, and those people excusing Ayers really ought to read it.By all means, dislike Ayers all you want. I'll join you and we can have a few drinks over why we think he is contemptable. If you like, I won't even mention the good things he's done since then, how long ago those actions were, or the right's penchant for judging a person on one episode. We can agree to dislike him together.

But this crap about his connection to Obama is nothing but just that... crap. They worked together to try and help Chicago Schools and other charitable work, and they met once at a party at Ayers house. And the right's insistence on smearing Obama based on that is just plain malarkey.