Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical

bhkad · 08-29-08, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I read your previous post, as I did this one. I still see nothing that shows that Obama holds the same positions that Ayers held in the '60's. Not only do I see no substantiation, but I see nothing that would lead anyone to believe that Obama holds positions consistent with the Weather Underground of the '60's, which is what Bill Ayers' positions of that time were based on...except those who are mudslinging. I stand by my position.

Please desist from slinging your mud on me.

bhkad · 08-29-08, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Yes, he can have an opinion, as can I.

How come people don't constantly attack Nader and Barr?

Because neither one is close to gaining access to the presidency and if there were as many troubling indications and unanswered questions about them they would be getting this same kind and amount of attention.

bhkad · 08-29-08, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

His actions are counter to his content.

It's a prediction predicated on the voters becoming aware of the troubling questions about Obama. But for people to become aware you and I must continue to raise these questions and hold his feet to the fire otherwise he won't feel he has to divulge any information about his past or current dealings.

bhkad · 08-29-08, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donc

bhkad your stating that Ayers threw a bomb into the U.S. Capital then you cut and paste a piece of an article that states< Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse> as your proof ?Care to point out how a bomb going off accidentally in Jersey puts Ayers throwing bombs in D.C.?

Wow! When you put it that way I realize one of us must be in the wrong place.

bhkad · 08-29-08, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donc

.

Laughable bhkad, quoting as a source your favorite conspiracy “OpEd”, the AIP, that proudly proclaims on their front page the following. Note what I have bolded.

<The American Issues Project was founded to champion the conservative values that have made the United States of America a blessed nation: smaller government, a strong and ready national defense, lower taxes, and a government that encourages entrepreneurship and new job creation in America. We also know how critical it is for America to win the war against the radical Islamic>

So instead of having to wade thru your cut and paste in the future, just provide a link to “AIP” which is the 2008 version of the swiftboat liers , this time it is funded by is funded by Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, instead of Texas billionaire T. Bone Pickens .Hhmm, anyone starting to see a trend? Texas billionaires, wingers?

Oh, by the way here was my original post.

Originally Posted by donc
How about the heading?

(Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical)

Don’t see anything that states Obama is trying to silence the add, just putting them on notice that the adds will be closely scrutinized and damn well better be factual

Do “you/AIP” have anything that refutes what I have posted?

A Well Meant Tip:

Here's a poorly done tutorial, I created some time ago, on how to use text blocks to format posts.

Quote:

HOW TO USE WRAP CODES WITH TEXT BLOCKS

When you want to make it clear that you are quoting someone else (and avoid confusion, and in some cases lawsuits from people who think you are claiming to be the writer), you can do this:

(In this instance I'll use your first paragraph.)

Highlight the text that you are quoting.

Then click on the "WRAP" icon.

And it will then look like this.

Then de-select or un-highlight the text block by clicking anywhere in your message field and the blue highlighting will disappear. Then finish making your post and the result will look like this.

Quote:

Those that know me are aware that my house was burglarized on March 12th while I was returning from SXSW. For the uninitiated, my house was broken into around 2:30-3:00pm and they made off with my xbox 360, an old powerbook (which they grabbed the wrong charger for) and ripped my TV right off the wall. Needless to say it was ****ty news to come home to, but things can be replaced and I was happy that my dog, who was downstairs at the time, wasn't hurt.

Your posts will be easier to read and comprehend. Also we'll know you are quoting someone else (always post the link when you quote someone or a source other than yourself) and the effort you make to separate what you are saying from what someone else has said will be unnecessary. Life will be GOOD!

bhkad · 08-29-08, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donc

Good,now all we have to do is find out who "they" are.

Read the information at the links.

bhkad · 08-29-08, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donc

Just pointing out how ridicules it is to try link Obama, to the weather underground, when he was 8 years old when the bombings that the wingers are yapping about happened.

How about everyone here that are shaking their heads, pointing a crooked finger of indignation, sayin tsk,tsk,for shame, what that lad did at 8 years old.

Is your background so pure that your associations with past acquaintance’s could pass the same muster? I know mine couldn’t, seeing as how in the mid seventies I was a Teamster Organizer in the Central States Conference.

I can think of few instances where you or I would be called upon to lead this great country. But the level of security needed for the job of POTUS is greater than what most average people could pass. It needs to be.

Quote:

The amount of information included {in a background security} check depends to a large degree on the sensitivity of the reason for which it is conducted—e.g., somebody seeking employment at a minimum wage job would be subject to far fewer requirements than somebody applying to work for the FBI.

Background check - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bhkad · 08-29-08, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

It looks to me that Ayers said that stuff *after* his associations with Obama.

But what's wrong with mixing up dates a bit if it helps a smear, eh?

Read the thread and the information at the links.

Quote:

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

--- Former domestic terrorist, revolutionary, leftist/Socialist and friend of Barack Obama, Bill Ayers. New York Times 9/11/01

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - New York Times

Quote:

The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse.

Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.”

Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

Although the press has been notably lax about pursuing the matter, the full story of the Obama-Ayers relationship calls the truth of Obama’s account seriously into question. When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force.

Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest.

With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”).

So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership. Of course, all of this clearly contradicts Obama’s dismissal of the significance of his relationship with Ayers.

Stanley Kurtz on Barack Obama, Bill Ayers & Chicago Annenberg Challenge on National Review Online

bhkad · 08-29-08, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

That would not have been accurate, because Obama's website is not making that claim. Obama's website quoted others who made that claim.

No I don't think it is fair to reach the conclusion that because Obama's website made those quotes that it means it reflects his views. The website was put up in response to conservative smear ads like the one here that attempt to portray Ayers as some kind of deranged terrorist, and that Obama was friends with him. Putting aside the "friends" claim which has been discussed elsewhere, the truth is that after 1980, from accounts I have seen, Ayers did become mainstream and respectable. He was a tenured university professor and worked in a number of social programs designed to help the poor and hungry.

Obama's website, in rebuttal to the misimplication of the ads, show that other notables claim that Ayers was mainstream and respectable. He is citing fact to rebut a misimplication. That is not the same thing as adopting belief.

It is fair IMO to question Obama for his association with Ayers based on the fact that Ayers 15-20 years earlier had been associated with the Weather Underground. But the additional smear is taking the statements of Ayers, affirming his actions in 2001, and creating the implication that Obama was "friend" and assciated with him knowing that was Ayers position. That is an intentionally false implication. There is nothing that I found that suggests that Obama associated with Ayers after he made those statements, except that Obama continued to serve on a community service organization board that Ayers was also on until Obama left in 2002.

I am not aware of any association in any way by Obama with Ayers after that.

So...

Is it your contention that Bill Ayers was a radical terrorist in the 1960's and 1970's, and Bill Ayers has espoused radical views since 2001, but Bill Ayers changed his radical views for a short period of time in the 1990's because of Obama, who was a young attorney seeking to get into politics?

Hey, maybe Obama worked his 'magic' on Ayers and he became enchanted.

bhkad · 08-29-08, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

It's a no-win situation.

If he doesn't sue, then folks say it must be true or why doesn't he sue?

If he does sue, he's trying to kill the first amendment.

It is more than that. In fact, the way the Obama machine is rolling and rolling out over America, looks pretty ominous.

Quote:

The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions. Coupled with the Obama campaign's recent attempts to sic the DOJ on the creators of a truthful political advertisement —which also happened to feature Obama's relationship with an unrepentant terrorist— last night's call to action represents an emerging pattern. Any criticism of Obama's unknown past is to be immediately denounced as a "smear," and the messenger is to be shut down at all costs.

[...]

Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried "smear." They labeled the National Right to Life committee "liars" for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate's record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency's strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.

If anyone still believes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine isn't a top priority for the American Left, last night's example offered a stark and alarming wake-up call.

Media Blog on National Review Online

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/35130-obama-seeks-silence-ad-tying-him-60s-radical.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Strategy 101 Did McCain Blew it? - Page 4 - FreeOnes Bulletin Board	This thread	Refback	08-30-08 08:12 AM