Reply With Quote
You have to find it funny that people who don't know Obama personally or know Ayers personally know better then they do how well defined their relationship is.
Obama worked with him on an education board for a good cause. He did not have a choice or say in who was or wasn't on this board.
Again what is the issue here? When it comes down to it there is absolutely nothing wrong with Obama's relationship, or lack of, with Ayers. Absolutely nothing.
You're grasping at straws like McCain is. And it isn't working. That's the bottom line. People aren't listening, nobody cares, it's a failed strategy.
You have to find it funny that people who don't know Obama personally or know Ayers personally know better then they do how well defined their relationship is.
It's simple. There was far more than just work associations. If that is all it was, I wouldn't think about it at all.
He served on board with him. Would that be considered a regualr basis?
Prove there was more than jusy work associations. I know as well as you do all you want to do is tarnish the guy enough so he can lose the election.
Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro
Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro
Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro
Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro Manchurian Negro
If I Say It Enough Maybe You Lib s Will Finally Get The Message
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008...ns-and-obamas/
I did not watch the debate live, and I’m glad that I didn’t bother liveblogging it. It wouldn’t have been hard to rearrange the text from my post on the first debate and pretend that I had covered the second one, so mind-numbingly similar were they. Everyone seems to agree that Obama prevailed, or at best McCain did not and so changed nothing about the overall direction of the race. Some of McCain’s supporters lamented that their candidate did not hit Obama on his associations, while more of his critics noticed that McCain was remarkably gutless to “raise questions” about Obama’s character and his associations on the trail over the weekend and then avoid talking about them on national television in front of Obama. Instead of demonstrating some kind of admirable restraint, refusing to talk about these associations at the debate just drives home how little stock McCain actually puts in their importance. As pure political calculation, this was probably right (Obama is viewed favorably, and persuadable voters don’t like personal attacks on the candidates they like), which is important in what it says about the McCain campaign’s idiotic preoccupation with obviously ineffective tactics. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
First a few words about the bizarre debate over what happened to the “real” McCain, which becomes more relevant as McCain has started asking, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” Even among McCain critics, there are some who still insist on coming up with excuses for the former media darling, and they echo the excuses journalists have made for McCain for years: sure, he’s lying about this or that, but he’s clearly uncomfortable doing it, which proves that he’s actually a good guy. More recently, McCain has seemed angrier and grumpier than usual, prompting the same excuses: he doesn’t enjoy doing this kind of campaigning, and it shows, which somehow makes it better. This has been the strange ethical standard applied to McCain for as long as I can remember. According to this odd view, if someone is not very proficient at lying and smearing his opponents and gives the impression that even he knows what he’s saying is nonsense, that somehow proves that he is honest and decent at heart. The correct view is exactly the opposite–if McCain knows the truth, doesn’t really believe what he’s saying and tells lies unconvincingly, that is evidence of the far deeper corruption of the man. Instead of being badly misguided or misinformed, he willfully says things that he knows have no merit or that he knows are unworthy of anyone in his position. In short, being a bad smear artist does not make someone ethical or honorable; it makes him unethical and incompetent.
The reason why McCain was smart, if gutless, to avoid talking about Obama’s associations last night is that he and his advisors seem finally to have recognized that invoking Ayers is not an effective tactic. This is remarkable because this tactic is incredibly popular among people on the right who think that talking endlessly about the “surge” is a good idea, and McCain still doesn’t understand that the “surge,” like his obsession with earmarks, means little to most voters who want out of Iraq anyway. Even though there is little or no evidence that his obsession with the “surge” works with the general electorate at all, McCain has continued to invoke it every chance he gets. Just as he does not understand that the “surge” represented a change in tactics (it is not a strategy!), he has never grasped that the tactic of hitting Obama on his opposition to the “surge” was achieving nothing. Until last night, it seemed as if his campaign was going to make the same mistake in making Ayers a centerpiece of the last few weeks, when Ayers, like the “surge,” is something that excites and mobilizies only core supporters and no one else.
Naturally, many of those core supporters are upset that he did not launch the attacks that they think are so powerful, but what they might consider is that the fact that McCain deliberately avoided using them should tell you something about how truly weak they are. After all, McCain has shown he has no compunctions about smearing Obama and lying about the records of his opponents; McCain wants to win, and he clearly despises Obama. So if attacking Obama on his associations was an effective tactic, McCain would have done it with the same gusto he showed when belittling Obama’s alleged lack of understanding of foreign affairs. That does not seem to be the lesson that many of his supporters are going to take away from last night. Instead, they are going to adopt something like Vietnam revisionism in which they express certainty that their candidate could have won if he’d just been willing to do whatever was necessary.
FindDog, what does your last post have to do with Obama and Ayres?
That nobody gives a about some asshole who set off pipe bombs in empty buildings 40 years ago when Obama was in third grade.
What does Bill Ayers have to do with the current financial crisis?
That deserves a different thread. This thread is about Obama and Ayres.
No, I think it belongs here.
But it isn't. The only reason you brought this up is because you are already against Obama. You never ever considered voting for him, so don't pretend like you would if only he had never met Ayers. Please don't lie any more than you already have.
This entire strategy is disingenuous and the people you are trying to convince -- undecideds -- don't care about it at all.
These Mfers don't even know who Ayers is. They're racists, sexist and evil and this Ayers stuff was brought up by McCain's camp and it is continuously mentioned by McCain supporters in the hopes that it will convince those of a higher intellect not to vote for Obama.
But what these ing prejudiced ass re s don't understand is that it's too ing late. Your candidate is reaching for straws--reaching for anything to try and pull Obama down but its going to fail. And I pray that it fails, because if another neocon, nationalistic, racist, sexist bas gets elected president, the US of A is going to go on a tear with war after senseless, hate-driven war until we're all killed.
Don't vote for McCain because he obviously does not know what he is doing. He's running his own campaign into the ground and, if elected, he will do the same thing to this country.
God Bless America and have mercy on souls.
McSlimeBot's got nothing but Ayers type of slime to throw at HUSSEIN.
McBottomGun has much longer, deeper, much more significant, and recent or on-going relationships with Keating, Liddy, Colson, all ex-cons.
I can't believe we're still debating this. If you haven't noticed Obama's lead is increasing in the polls. This attack ISN'T working on the all important Independents that McCain needs on his side. Guilt by association is the weakest form of attack.
Who funded many of the educational projects that Obama and Ayers worked on in that committee? The Annenberg Foundation. Who helped kick off Ronald Reagan's career? Walter Annenberg. Who founded the Annenberg Foundation? Walter Annenberg. Ronald Reagan palled around with people who donated money to terrorists. See how stupid this is?
This line of attack is going to fail because most people realize what this is. A depserate campaign trying smear their oponenent. Now people are trying to tie Acorn and the economy around Obama's neck which is also going to fail. The more the GOP pushes this they will see their efforts to galvanize more support for the guy who pals around with terrorists.
RealClear is showing Obama with a 6.2% average lead in the polls and MO, WV, and IN are now in play. I wonder if McBain has anything left in his bag of tricks b/c the "palling around with terrorists" line isn't working.
bitbull welcoming and encouraging the Alaska Independence Party and to keep the good "secede from the Union" work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7Et....org/palin/148
Goals
Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives."The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were en led to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:1) Remain a Territory.The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
http://www.akip.org/goals.html
pitbull been pal-ing around, in June 08, with treasonous, anti-American secessionists.
I was today years old when became familiar with this
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
