If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Boyz)   "Looking at Ayers, one is forced to ask exactly what kind of leftist extremism would be considered unacceptable by Obama and his cohorts."   (chicagoboyz.net) divider line 211
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

665 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Aug 2008 at 12:50 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-08-27 04:53:03 PM
samimgreen: Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.

Obama and his people wish it could be that easy....

This will be a significant issue for the remainder of the campaign...

Sooner or later, Obama's going to be forced to answer to and explain this friendship....

And lord help us if Ayers ever opens his mouth....

hope...change
 
2008-08-27 05:10:36 PM
samimgreen
Trolls create clicks on a website with a business model based on clicks.

I didn't ask why Fark's owners want trolls, I asked why WE need trolls.

There are never things that are hidden.

I love the capacity of people, borne purely of their own partisanship, that allows them to become the most skeptical skeptics that ever skeptic'd in Skepticville, or seemingly the most absolutely naive person on planet earth, based purely on the political affiliation of the person or issue they are evaluating.

Yes, I'm sure that Senator Barack Obama is secretly an America-hating terrorist who is using the shadowy world of local community boards to recruit an army of hippies and extremist Muslims to take over the world.

But that whole Bush invasion of Iraq thing? The torture? The illegal and wholesale wiretapping of American citizens, and Bush's direct statements that it wasn't happening? Totally on the up and up, all that.

It's a good thing that we have such reliable and unbiased skeptics around.
 
2008-08-27 05:21:16 PM
BojanglesPaladin: Tokay
Obama could be a closet marxist, but what does it matter if it doesn't show in his governance?

Except that we have such liited examples of his governance, and it does show up in some of it. More concerning to me on that specific topic is the idea of electing a leftist President to serve with a left controled Democratic congress. It is a BAD idea to have the executive and both houses of the Legislature in lock-step with each other in the same extreme ideology.

I think the last 8 years should have made this clear to everyone. I don't want to replace neo-cons with neo-commies :)

If I was reasonably sure that the [R]s would regain control or even significantly narrow the margin in congress -or- if I was reasonably sure that Obama was from the 'conservative' wing of the Democratic party, I might be more inclined to vote for the guy. With a countering congress to keep him from doing anything really stupid, I would be more comfortable.

But the more I look into it, the more I think that Obama and Pelosi are cut from roughly the same ideological cloth. And things like Ayers, and Dayley, and Wright seem to support that assesment.

That is my assesment. Others have looked at some of the same information and have arrived at different conclusions. All hail diversity.


I fail to understand that while in a dwindling economy and fighting 1 war and occupying a seperate country, our government being in gridlock is a good idea.

I fail to see why one candidate must vet every single person he may have associated with. Does his opponent get the same treatment?

mattbutler99: samimgreen: Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.

Obama and his people wish it could be that easy....

This will be a significant issue for the remainder of the campaign...

Sooner or later, Obama's going to be forced to answer to and explain this friendship....

And lord help us if Ayers ever opens his mouth....

hope...change


Have you yet noticed that almost everything you've said has been proven incorrect? Are you actually aware of this?
 
2008-08-27 05:28:39 PM
RevMercutio: Have you yet noticed that almost everything you've said has been proven incorrect? Are you actually aware of this?

More importantly, does he care?
 
2008-08-27 06:04:16 PM
RevMercutio
I fail to see why one candidate must vet every single person he may have associated with. Does his opponent get the same treatment?

If you see this as a 'failure to vet', you don't understand why some people are concerned.

The 'problem' (if you see it as a problem) is that Obama persued and achieved politcal affiliations with some of the more virulently leftist ideologues available within the Chicago political arena. An arena, which is iteself an example of one-party politics. Ayers, Dorn, Dayley, Wright, etc. are all well established fixtures of a radical left ideology and world-view, and for many people looking to get an understanding of what exactly Obama's political ideology is beyond the current Presidential campaign, which everyone (presumably) understands to take with a grain of salt as it has a stated objective of reforming the candidates public image to make it more palateable to the largest number of people.

When you also factor in his days as a 'community activist', his politicaly motivated choice of a left-oriented civil right law firm, and his allegience with the left side of a left leaning Democratic political structure, his patronage by politically connected sponsors like Axelrod and (I hate to even mention it) Rezko, it seems to paint a very different picture of Obama than the currently promulgated brand of 'post-partisan politician' currently being played out in the campaign. There seems to be a pattern of political choices in who Obama chose as his fellow travelers.

In short, I think Obama's affiliations with Ayers over the years and in a variety of organizations, when taken in context with Obama's other known affiliations highlights the discrepency between Obama the brand and Obama the man. It paints a picture of a candidate that has more in common with the 'progressive' wing of the Democratic party than the more moderate and mainstream elements of the party.

When you also factor in such current policy positions that are patently oriented to a class-warfare struggle such as 'windfall taxes', constant huranguing of the 'rich' boogeyman, appeals to the 'fairness' of some people being succesful while others are not, his track record on 2nd amendment rights, his freudian slip of 'clinging to religion and guns' and a variety of small gaffs or slips of the tongue and one can begin to think that Obama's political worldview is not as mainstream as we are all being led to believe.

Now if someone is left-leaning, or already shares many of these political viewpoints or beliefs, they would not see anything wrong with this. Within the left-leaning political circles of Chicago, Ayers and Dorn don't even register as anything unusual, even with some of their current statementa.

And there is certainly a place in America for far left political thinking. Many of the motivations, concepts and principles of 'social justice' are noble and well intentioned, even if there is dispute about means of execution. But the type of leftist politics espoused by people like Ayers and Dorn and Wright and others is not in keeping with the general consensus.

I have not yet made up my mind whether Obama is truly a leftist, or if he is simply a shrewd politician who recognized that the only way to advance politicaly in Chicago was to make strange bedfellows, and so I spend a lot of time listening to what Obama says now to form an opinion of the total picture. Actions speak louder than words, and many of his actions in the past cause me concern.

Opinion vary.
 
2008-08-27 06:24:39 PM
BojanglesPaladin:

At least that is my recollection.


We are both correct. The window ledge was in the parking lot.

BojanglesPaladin:

Not when these bombs were specifically built with nails and metal shavings.


Shrapnel, like the explosive component of the bombs are damaging to property as well as humans. The question is how you use it. From the nearly non-existent body count, its clear they never actually used one for the purposes of killing people. And that the SF death was likely an accident. At some point in time they have claimed responsibility for a number of bombings before and after the one in SF, no one ever claimed responsibility for that one. If they meant to kill a cop they would have.

Are you trying to argue that the Weathermen were NOT terrorists?

Depends. If your talking about the strict definition of terrorism, not at all. How ever many groups including various agencies of our government were using terrorism(under the strict definition) abroad and against various groups within the US. Vietnam killed 2.4 million civilians, the WU campaign to stop Vietnam killed one.

Compared to what we talk about today when we talk about terrorism, no it wouldn't be a reasonable classification based on the fact that nearly every group today that we classify as such, specifically attack civilians. That is their main target. That was not what WU was doing.

BojanglesPaladin:
My point was that they fit exactly the text book definition of terrorists. The IRA also calls in bombs and also (sometimes) tried to avoid innocent deaths. But the IRA DID kill innocents, and they ARE terrorists. And so are the Weathermen. And so were Ayers and Dorn.


While there were times the IRA may have tried to limit casualties, they often did target civilians. If you really want to use this definition of terrorism, there are a vast number of actions taken in Iraq, by our troops, that would easily fall under that definition of terrorism. Is this really where you wanna go?

Per the rest of your comment. I am not defending what they did, nor am defending anything that Ayers espouses or espoused, I was specifically addressing the characterization of the intent of what they did.
 
2008-08-27 06:52:57 PM
Well, if your candidate is a walking foot-in-mouther, and your party has a horrific recent track record, and your campaign is devoid of ideas, well, it makes a lot of sense to try to create diversions, now doesn't it?
 
2008-08-27 07:01:59 PM
burndtdan: just look, there he is in the same room as gorbachev!

you've just won this thread. Nice.
 
2008-08-27 08:30:42 PM
BojanglesPaladin: I've not yet made up my mind whether Obama is truly a leftist, or if he is simply a shrewd politician who recognized that the only way to advance politicaly in Chicago was to make strange bedfellows, and so I spend a lot of time listening to what Obama says now to form an opinion of the total picture. Actions speak louder than words, and many of his actions in the past cause me concern.


That's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. But hey, have fun supporting the guy who took free gifts for years from Charles Keating, in an actual verified friendship, and not simply "They were on some boards together".

Keep in mind which candidate has had to come up in front of an Ethics Committee.
 
2008-08-27 11:46:32 PM
lol @ Obamaniacs becoming Ayers' apologists.

"So what if his organization planted pipe bombs that killed people?

Obama is for hope and change. POW! PANCAKES!"
 
2008-08-28 10:12:54 AM
RevMercutio
Keep in mind which candidate has had to come up in front of an Ethics Committee.

ROFL. They BOTH have!

You should learn more, speak less.
 
Displayed 11 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report