Here is the first interview of Ayers I have seen. This is the boogie man of Palins dreams. He explains that when he said he wishes he could have done more to stop the Viet Nam war it was not about bombing. It was that it took too long, too many lives and too much money before it was finally stopped. We all would have been better if it stopped earlier. Better yet, if it never started.
Not that I don’t think this an interesting topic to post about but:
It’s “Ayers” and
Where’s the debate?
The OP made this assertion:
We all would have been better if it stopped earlier. Better yet, if it never started.Perhaps that is the topic for debate.
I’m guessing the topic for debate is: is Ayers the wild-eyed, bomb-throwing radical the Republican Noise Machine making him out to be?
I say no, but I came to that conclusion some time ago.
Well then you’re wrong. It’s not a matter for debate. Ayers did bomb his own country. Not even he disputes that.
Now, whether you like what he’s doing in education or not, the fact is that standing on the flag doesn’t play well in politics. Obama understands this - which is why he has tried at all times to downplay his association with Ayers.
I don’t regard Ayers as anything other than what he is - somewhat of a pathetic figure who couldn’t hack it as a genuine radical in hiding and had his father manage his reintroduction to polite society. Yet he remains “unrepentant”. I suppose that’s simple to do when your ass is no longer on the line.
He’s not important, really, except that if Obama lies about small matters like this it should make us wonder what he’ll tell the truth about. And make no mistake, Obama wasn’t truthful when he dismissed Ayers as someone who lived in his neighborhood - their association was deeper than that.
It isn’t a big issue in the least, but it amazes me how many people will cluster around and claim Ayers is the greatest thing since sliced baloney. When he no longer needs to be defended, he won’t be, and he’ll drift off into the oblivion he deserves, and which has claimed other worthies admired by some on this board. See Sheehan, Cindy and Churchill, Ward in our handy back index.
For your information, the word “is” is present tense. Is Ayers the wild-eyed, bomb-throwing radical the Republican Noise Machine making him out to be? We know he bombed back when Obama was in elementary school. What has he done for us lately?
I wish I had a pony…but I’m unwilling to bomb anyone to get one. Well…I guess I could think of a few people I could, perhaps, use harsh language to in order to get my pony.
I want a Mini-Cooper too…for the record.
Well, I agree. However, we have a means to demonstrate our dis-satisfaction with our government other than having to resort to violence. You could, you know, protest. Vote. Write your congress-critter.
The thing is, if you don’t like what the government is doing then what you need to do is convince a majority of your fellow citizens that your view is correct…not blow stuff up.
Yes, we probably would be. And certainly Vietnam would have been better off as well. Isn’t hindsight a great thing?
Ayers wouldn’t be defended at all if it weren’t for the Republican freak-out artists bringing him up - as they brought up Sheehan and Churchill.
I’d be happy to never mention Bill Ayers again, if John McCain won’t either.
Obama mentioned what he needed to about Ayers at the time. No need to elaborate unless asked. The mans no more a terrorist than Gene Hackman, it just makes McCains camp look more afool.
Right. Except that, of course, we didn’t exactly make Sheehan engage in her protest - or have her political actions go way off the rails afterward. That was all her. Nor did we have Ward Churchill write his essay - or have Hamilton College invite him to speak. And we certainly didn’t make Ayers do all of the things he did.
But it’s all our fault. Amazing.
No, it’s the beating of the dead horse that’s your fault.
And no, no matter how much you thwack it, it’s not going to start pulling your wagon.
Ayers was a 60’s radical.
Sheehen was a grieving mother with an axe to grind and a picket sign.
Churchill was a college professor with outrageoius views.
All of them are responsible for their own actions, and yet every one of them is held up by the right as proof of how the left as a whole are worthless, immoral, dangerous, etc.
What’s the point of bringing up Ayers? To try to leverage his past as some gigantic black mark you can bleed onto Obama’s character.
Who gives a shit what this “pathetic figure who couldn’t hack it as a genuine radical” did 40 years ago? No one but you and your righty-tighty friends who think they can make hay over it.
In one breath you paint Obama and Ayer’s “association” as deep, claiming you have some super-duper secret knowledge of how they cuddle each other at night or something … then you say, Oh Ayer’s he’s just a fuck up anyway.
Which is it? Is he Lex Luthor or Otis?
And how is it the left’s fault that Ayer is this bugaboo that you’ve made him out to be, and no one else gives a shit about?
Oh, don’t tell me, because you know for a fact that Obama is lying about all of it. Have you let John McCain’s campaign in on things? I’m sure they could use that somehow.
You guys know, I assume, that the guy who started this thread (god’s know why…what IS the debate here exactly?) isn’t a right winger…right? I agree that bringing this guy up is just a different way to attack Obama…and it’s also very much beating a dead horse who couldn’t be lead to water in mid-stream…but in fairness it wasn’t a right winger who started this thread to get more Obama shots in.
You can repaint the contribution to American history by Ayers all you want, but the fact is Ayers was a leader of a terrorist organization that bombed. Despite his claims, people died. Specifically his own people while constructing a **nail ** bomb.
I find the association of Ayers with Obama as disturbing as if I read that John McCain was teamed up with O.J. at a celebrity charity golf tournament.
What did they do together aside from serving on a board?
What? You’d be thinking McCain asked to be teamed up with O.J., is that it?
In any event, presumably you find disturbing the associations with Mr. Ayers of all the other members of the Annenberg Challenge board. Is that correct? If you only find that of Mr. Obama disturbing, and not the others, why?
Er, I think he may have been saying that he doesn’t find Mr. Obama’s ‘relationship’ with Ayers disturbing at all.
And as for the prior post, you’re welcome; just doing my part.
Well, if so, wouldn’t be the first time I got the wrong end of the stick.