We can talk about those issues. However, this thread is about the people with whom Barack Obama chooses to associate.
but as far as "moral equivalence" goes, I can see why people would prefer we debate the attack on Obama w/o mentioning anything about McCain and Palin- there's so much more to say about them! since you like speaking in academic english- how about another term- zero sum game. Assuming the point of political discussion is to decide who to vote for- i.e. only one ticket wins- then it's fair to air out the issues on both sides. It's completely fair to point out Palin's crazy associations if you are talking about Obamas.
Excuse me?? Where in the hell have you been? Obama attended a church with a radical, anti-American pastor for 20 years. He is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, a marxist who wrote the book, "Rules for Radicals." He supports the candidacy of a Marxist in Kenya. He was mentored by a communist in Hawaii during his youth. And he gave a glowing endorsement of one of Ayers' books. Everything that we know about Obama suggests that he shares Ayers' views. Do you guys just pretend to be naive, or what? This is getting ridiculous. I think I could stand you in front of a red barn and you would deny it was red.
If the thread were titled something like "crazy associations", we could discuss both. However, this is about Bill Ayers and Sirhan Sirhan--a guy who is probably not a friend of either Ted Kennedy (who endorsed Obama) or Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (who chaired his VP search committee). You don't think they'd be offended by a friend of Obama's dedicating a book to someone who murdered a member of their family? Saying that the AIP is anywhere on the same level as that piece of human filth is a ridiculous statement and deserves to be called out. BTW, what would you like to say about Gov. Palin's or Sen. McCain's "crazy associations"? Which one had a 20 year relationship with a preacher who hates this country. Which one has a friend who has bombed this country and takes pride in it? Sure it is. Create a thread on Sarah Palin's relationship with the AIP, and I'll be happy to discuss it.
So back to my guilt by association comment. It's a lazy kind of argument, made by people who are desperate to try to scare people into voting for one candidate and not the other. Sorry if I don't want to play this game of "boo!" game under the same rules you think apply here. It was the same when people (on the left) would point out the picture of Rumsfeld with Hussein back from the 80's. Kind of like how Palin has charged Obama with palling with Rashid Khalidi, when McCain was in charge of a group that gave a lot of money to him. Obviously it must mean that McCain 100% supports Khalidi because he gave him almost 500K, right? If we're going to play the guilt by association game, it goes both ways. But why play it? Why not stick to the issues instead of scaring people into voting for one candidate vs the other?
Oh I love this Kool-Aid! It has vitamins and minerals that make me grow up big, strong, Marxist, gay, unarmed, use rich peoples money, and attacked by muslims....YUMMY!!!!
When you don't know someone, and they continue to not be open about their background, you have to see with whom they choose to surround themselves. And are you really equating a diplomatic visit and a group giving money to another group as being the same thing as having a personal relationship with a person? Are you really that desperate to show both sides are guilty therefore we shouldn't address the issue? The bottom line is that if Barack Obama wasn't trying to hide who he was (and did a better job of concealing it), the questions would stop. Until that point, the associations are going to continue to be an issue.
true. And the arguments about Palin where they're based on GBA, are pretty pathetic. Did you miss my point in bringing up the meeting with Rumsfeld and Hussein? It was a poor argument then, because it's "guilt by association" that the left tried to use. Guilt by association is a lazy mans argument. I'm "desperate" to show that people should try arguing about the issues, and not paper thin connections between people, done SOLELY to scare people into voting for the white guy. Don't like his tax issues, fine. Don't like stance on the war in Iraq? Fine. But don't like how a guy who he's had (at best) minimal contact with was a complete moron 40 years ago? Because if thats what you want to use in your argument, I'll just counter by saying I don't like how McCain has had maximum contact with a complete moron....*today* (that being Bush). But if it makes people feel better to give themselves a reason not to vote for Obama, that he's a "socialist" or a "marxist" or a "America hating liberal/terrorist/muslim", whatever. It just seems to be kind of a dumb stance to make. How is he hiding? We're in the 21st century. Google is one the best search engines there is (actually, it's not, but that's besides the point). If we can find stuff about how McCain gave money to Khalidi almost 20 years ago, and find it easily I might add, we could also find these "links" that you and the others are convinced are sure to exist.
No, I got it the first time. The point you blew by is when you have precious little else to go on, guilt by association is not a "lazy man's argument", it's a tool to try to understand the mind of someone bent on obscuring who they really are. Also, there are degrees of association. Some are six degrees of Kevin Bacon and some are deep and influential. Ah, the old canard of race. Of course it's about white vs. black. After all, it just HAS to be about the mandingo issue. I guess Bill Clinton really was a racist when Hillary ran against Obama. Talk about a scare tactic. "Oh, you don't support Obama? You must be a racist." He hasn't had minimal contact with Bill Ayers. He wasn't "some guy in the neighborhood". He knew him at Columbia. He knew him in Hyde Park. He attended parties with him. He held one of his first fundraisers at his house. He wasn't just some guy he occasionally saw at the Co-op or Medici's. I used to live at 55th and Dorchester, and Bill Ayers was more than "some guy in the neighborhood". Everyone knew damn well who he was. He was a domestic terrorist who got off from a murder rap on a technicality who proclaimed "guilty as hell, free as a bird...what a country". For all of his attempts at rehabilitation by becoming an academic, he still hasn't repented for his past actions. How is his political ideology a "dumb stance to make"? I can't think of a more important reason to vote for or against someone for President than their ideology. I guess that's why Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw--two people who have spent a lot more time and effort than the average voter trying to get to know Sen. Obama--both admitted they really don't know who he is or what is his worldview. Not everything is in print. Not everything is available for public consumption. At some point in time, you have to discuss what changed you, what made you the person you are, what your vision is beyond "hope" and "change". He'll say one thing to the Palestinians and another to the Israelis. He'll say one thing to people in Pennsylvania, and then say something different to people in San Francisco. We don't know what he really thinks. However, it seems the more we hear when he lets his guard down, the more radical the vision becomes.
because I am polite enough to respond when someone, such as you, asks me a direct question. I also try to respond respectfully at all times.
No, you find it significant that most of the people that Obama has interacted with in the past that the media has cherrypicked happen to disagree with your worldview. No, there are fewer and fewer people in general talking about Bill Ayers and who he dedicates his books to because fewer and fewer people give a flying fuck. Keep on beating that dead horse all by yourself. No, they wouldn't. He's a war hero, and it's off limits to judge his character. Hell, he called Cindy a cunt and no one ever mentions that. Imagine if Obama had done that? For the record, its you people that called him our savior, not us.
None of these people has expressed hate for "America". A couple have at times expressed hate for treasonous elements of our government. George Bush is not America. Dick Cheney is not America.
Well, McCain did donate nearly $500,000 to Khalid so don't you think that's relevant? Doesn't it tell you something about the way his mind works, and his values?
