Ayers, Liddy, and other political questions about McCain and Obama's associations

[Buffy]

Moderation note: The first 56 posts of this thread were moved (with some difficult in choosing) from the 16477, because they are about the McCain-Obama Presidential contest, not terrorist watch lists.

 

Seeing as how McCain rallies have been recorded with participants yelling "kill him!" and "terrorist!" as direct threats against Senator Obama and McCain freely continues to consort with these people, then he should immediately be charged with sedition, and perhaps sent to Guantanamo because there is the slightest possibility that his activities may produce great bodily harm to US citizens.

 

Wouldn't you agree questor?

 

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step, ;)

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, if I said to you what you are saying to me, the moderators would be all over me. Exactly what is the inference in this post?

 

Seeing as how McCain rallies have been recorded with participants yelling "kill him!" and "terrorist!" as direct threats against Senator Obama and McCain freely continues to consort with these people, then he should immediately be charged with sedition, and perhaps sent to Guantanamo because there is the slightest possibility that his activities may produce great bodily harm to US citizens.

 

Wouldn't you agree questor?

 

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step,

Buffy

[CraigD]

Seeing as how McCain rallies have been recorded with participants yelling "kill him!" and "terrorist!" …

A point of accuracy: cries of “terrorist!” from McCain rally attendees have been recorded. The much-discussed cry of “kill him!”, which Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank claims to have heard on 10/6, has not been found on any audio recordings of the event yet examined.

 

This is not to say the cry did or did not occur, or that Milbank did or did not accurately hear it, only that no automated recording of it has been found.

 

The Secret Service are investigating Milbank’s claim. It’s a federal felony to threaten a presidential candidate, of which legal precedent has been established that simply shouting “kill him!” is a violation. The Secret Service take the job of protecting elected office holders and candidates very seriously, and I’m sure strongly want to know who, if anyone, uttered this cry.

 

Source: 'Kill Him' Yell At Clearwater Palin Rally Being Probed

[questor]

YES! These are the people we need to bring our country together!

YouTube - Obama's terrorist connections - William Ayers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g

By his friends and his acts, ye shall know him.

[Essay]

YES! These are the people we need to bring our country together!

 

By his friends and his acts, ye shall know him.

I'm assuming your first comment is sarcastic....

...and that since your final comment sounds biblical, it must have veracity?

===

 

Questor,

You seem to be a voice of relative calm and reason in the blogosphere, and I'd really like to hear what you have to say. I've responded to various questions of yours, but I rarely (I think) see a response from you to any of my questions. Feel free to go back thru some of these more enjoyable threads and comment on my responses, or find some of my questions....

 

....Or respond to others' questions; but please don't just re-post some blogospheric sludge designed to target the reptilian part of our brains. This is a science forum; let's stick to ideas that can be supported by citatable evidence.

 

I've spent my life surrounded by the "liberal elite," after changing from pre-Med. to a library career (it was a univ. research library, so my Chem. & Biochem degrees were "used"); but my point is that learning more about the "conservative worldview" would really help explain what is going on in the world.

 

Personally, I can't even watch YouTubes on my computer; but I'll be willing to accept it as good evidence of some point in discussion (assuming someone else will check the veracity).

Is there some point you'd like to make, for which this video would be a good citation?

 

What'dya think of my social/capitalism suggestions/impromptu examples?

...or Reason's very thoughtful points, above? Be back later....

 

Thanks,

~ :(

 

p.s. ...and yes; what pgrmdave says above too! You don't want to equate civil disobedience with terrorism, do you?

...and hey!!! Most of those St. Paul arrests were pre-emptive, if you'll look (or I'll cite something later).

[Zythryn]

Ayers in 1997 was named 'Chicago Citizen Of The Year' for his efforts in education.

And he is hardly a friend of Obama. Yes, they know each other. And yes, they have met in a few board meetings (nasty evil terroristic meetings like things about poverty and education). Obama has condemned his past behaviors.

 

I really hope McCain brings this up during the debate. It will show the rest of the undecided voters just how manipulative and desperate he is.

[questor]

Do you think people can read about the lives of others, serve on boards with others, visit the homes of others, be supported for political office by others, work for the same causes as others, and not be aware of others opinions? Why don't you read some information about Ayers teachings and beliefs? It's public record.

[pgrmdave]

Being aware of others' opinions, even disagreeing with them, doesn't mean that you should refuse all contact with them. Sometimes people can be wrong about some things, and right about other things.

 

Keep in mind questor that your presence here is a good example of why Obama's Ayers connection isn't that important. You disagree with people here, and people disagree with you. And yet, I suspect that we've all learned from each other, and have a bit more respect for each other, and are possibly even better people for it.

 

 

 

It makes no sense to renounce people as soon as they disagree with you on something. People are complex, and nobody has only bad ideas or only good ideas. In this case, the question should not be whether Obama had ties to Ayers, but rather how well Obama was able to take the good ideas from Ayers while ignoring the bad.

[Donk]

To clear up some misconceptions..

William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn...

 

link:30-Y.O. Unsolved SF Murders Reopen (Bernadine Dohrn suspect in murders of two police officers?)

 

also..

 

and...

 

link: Family Security Matters » Publications » Exclusive: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn – Friends of Barack Obama

 

These people are now college professors and friends of Obama

This election cycle has thrown up a huge number of smoking guns that have on examination turned out to be red herrings. The sheer level of polemic shown in your quotes makes me unwilling to waste time checking on the supposed facts - I'll wait until I read it from a reputable source.

 

One section is clearly wrong though - no checking needed:

Shortly after the Days of Rage riot, the Weathermen risibly “declared war” on the United States. The sheer pretentiousness of these junior Bolsheviks was vaguely laughable.

Remember 9/11? A bunch of Saudi Arabians armed with craft knives declared war on the United States. Your own president said so. Was that "risible"? Were they being "pretentious"? Was there anything "laughable" about it??

 

Isn't it an act of faith that anything a Saudi Arabian can do, an American Citizen can do better?

[questor]

I don't think McCain attended Hagee's church 20 years, or was baptized by him, or socialized with him. Furthermore, a transgression by one party does not absolve transgression by another. If you are satisfied with Obama's picks for friends, pastors and mentors, I can understand where you are coming from. I just wouldn't vote for someone like that, or trust him to lead the country.

[pgrmdave]

I think that Reason's point was that those things aren't problems for the Republican candidates, and so Ayers shouldn't really be a problem for the Democratic candidates. But, if Ayers is considered a problem, then we should also look into those thing about the Republicans.

[Buffy]

Thank you Craig for pointing out the lack of a recording of "kill him," although I hardly consider Dana Milbank to be a "partisan!"

 

Friends of John McCain include of course *convicted* felons like G. Gordon Liddy, who strongly support his campaign too.

 

As noted above, if "associating" with people indicates full approval of all of their activities, then I'm really glad that all of the conservatives on this site fully support my "radical liberal" viewpoint, because they spend so much time "associating" with me! :)

 

Why anyone is spending any time on this and arguing that its somehow relevant--and that includes aspersions about "associating" with *either* Liddy or Ayers--is beyond the pale. If this is the reason someone does not "trust" a candidate, I have a bridge in Manhattan for them to buy....

 

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office, :)

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

Sure, I would not have wanted him teaching my kids when he was blowing up bathrooms. But that was many decades ago. I forgave Bush his smoking of MJ when he was young, and tend not to hold things against people that they did 30-40 years ago if they show they have changed.

Considering the respect he has in Chicago and the awards received and the work he does, I feel he has changed.

What we choose to equivocate and what we choose to minimize are at the heart of the reason that this is an issue. You parallel President Bush smoking marijuana to Ayers bombing the pentagon, I cannot draw that same parallel in drawing conclusions about a person's character based upon the events of their past. There are millions who share the common background of having smoked pot. It is a select few who found the inner drive required to actually bomb the military headquarters of their own country; you choose to reference this as "blowing up bathrooms".

 

People are multifaceted, and they grow and change over time. I am perhaps less forgiving in this case than in others, but that is influenced by my own value system which drives my political leanings. Not that I have different values than other people, but that my prioritization of those values differs. Those on the left and those on the right want the same things in the big picture. What actions they feel will get there and what they are willing to do and sacrifice in the name of those goals is where they differ; that is where values become politics.

 

An example of this that has come up before in the debate over Roman Polanski.http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/8958-roman-polanski-and-public-education.html The people on opposite sides of this debate do not have differing opinions of Polanski's talent as an artist, or of his guilt in getting a 13 year old girl drunk and having sexual intercourse with her. But some people will always consider that act rape regardless of his artistic merit, and will take no action, however distant and purely symbolic it may be, to endorse the work of a man who is a fugitive of justice for that crime. While others see the passing of time and say "'no big deal ...."

 

I do not believe that Ayers would have any direct influence on the policy machine of an Obama administration after all the hubbub during this political campaign. I am not certain that he would have been kept at a significant distance if Obama were free to choose his political advisers without need to consider the politics of those decisions. And that rather tangential logic is what leads me to take the history of Ayers into my understanding of Obama's own deeper value system. It would certainly please me if he were to unequivocally distance himself from Ayers, but instead he chooses to minimize the issue. It happened when he was eight... blah blah blah. At the same time I see a man who has a loyalty to his friendships that he attempts to preserve despite politics. But the way Obama has walked the middle line has left me seeing him as someone who is ultimately, passionately disingenuous in how he addresses such issues. His reaction to outrage over the comments of his long-time pastor tells the same tale. He obviously loves the guy, but cannot be honest about what he heard from him over the years. Instead he denies ever hearing anything outrageous only to spend one day listening and them condemning what he heard in that one day. This after attending these sermons for 20 years, being married by the man, and having him baptize his children. Does he agree with the pastor? No, I don't think Obama shares his passionate outspoken hatred of the US government. But to say he never heard it before just makes me want to say "please don't insult EVERYONES intelligence like that!"

 

So the people on the right say that this matters and shines light on Obama's character, while the people on the left say these minor players in Obama's life are irrelevant. The truth is that there is truth on both side, and so much desperation in an election to give no ground to the other side that the most minor of indicators of insight into what makes a candidate tick are blow up to be either the end-all-be-all of insiders knowledge or insidiously fabricated lies and exaggerations.

 

In the end one of the beautiful things about the two party system is the damn gridlock. It is so hard to actually get anything done that the person elected really does no more than cause an ideological drift in one direction or another. I wore black when President Clinton won the 1992 election. I rarely agreed with his actions and positions, but in the end he did not ruin the United States. There are those who hated the Republican regain of power in the Congress in 1994, but it did not ruin the United States. Believe it or not, even President Bush has not ruined the United States. So in the end I can live with a President Obama and even respect him if he, in my eyes, honors the office of President.

 

I commented the other day that it is tough being a conservative this year. It is. On one hand you have an unapologetic socialist running on the democratic ticket. He will propose policy that will so outrage the middle of the right that it will renew the Republicans in the role they have been most effective in - the opposition party. What most people fail to realize despite C1ay reminding them is that the Congress does all the spending. The so-called "Clinton surplus" was the result of a Republican Congress acting as an opposition party. The biggest failing of the past 8 years is the Republicans becoming what they had so effectively opposed and increasing spending across the board. On the other hand you have McCain who gains his reputation as a so-called mavric by opposing his own party and leading centrist movements in the Senate to push compromise legislation. So what makes him scary? He would probably drive policy to the left more effectively than Obama because he will get less obstinate opposition from his own party. So I am left with the decision of pushing for a leader who allegedly represents me but will certainly lean the country away from my own values, or a person who will push the country in that direction, but by doing so may make slower progress toward that end. Personally I think it is almost a wash between the two as far as history will be concerned; aside from the race barrier issue which means nothing to me.

 

So if it matters so little, why should I even bother? Because I like knowing that the President shares my values, and that his efforts will be in line with my own ideas and philosophies.

 

But the topic here is terrorist lists, so let me bring us back to there. The fear is that there will be a slippery slope. While the people on these lists may not have been adversely affected, putting them on such a list is the first step in the direction of a fascist dictatorship. This may be true were it not for the balance of the Constitution. The President does not line out portions of the Constitution. Presidents experiment with the borders of what the Constitution will allow, and are sometimes found to have stepped over the lines, but the balance of power insures that things are ultimately pulled back into check, and may even swing scarily into another direction completely. Do the ends justify the means? It is a question of who's ends and who's means. And the way we equivocate and minimize and rationalize the important into the insignificant and vise-verse, insures that we will always have controversy, but I an confident that in the end, as my father explained to me as a child when talking about nuclear war, cooler heads will prevail.

 

As noted above, if "associating" with people indicates full approval of all of their activities, then I'm really glad that all of the conservatives on this site fully support my "radical liberal" viewpoint, because they spend so much time "associating" with me!

For the record, the reason I hang out with you is because at some point a boob might pop out. The fact that you are a liberal just makes the odds more favorable. :D

 

Bill

[Turtle]

of time and say "'no big deal ...."

 

I do not believe that Ayers would have any direct influence on the policy machine of an Obama administration after all the hubbub during this political campaign. I am not certain that he would have been kept at a significant distance if Obama were free to choose his political advisers without need to consider the politics of those decisions. And that rather tangential logic is what leads me to take the history of Ayers into my understanding of Obama's own deeper value system. It would certainly please me if he were to unequivocally distance himself from Ayers, ...

 

Obama directly & unequivically did just that in the 3rd Presidential Debate. Did you see Dave Letterman ask John McCain about Liddy? Squirmed so hard they went to break so John could compose himself enough to admit when they came back on that he was a good pal & Johnny went on to add that Liddy paid his debt to society so he's all good.

 

:dog:For the record, the reason I hang out with you is because at some point a boob might pop out. The fact that you are a liberal just makes the odds more favorable. :D Bill

 

I think I recall that the young Lady stated she was a conservative in one of these political threads. 'Course, there is her sig to consider... which is why I hang out with her. :(

[Moontanman]

I don't know guys, Conservative, Liberal, I'm not sure either one has anything to do with boobs, except of course the two running for president. One of them is bound to pop out eventually :D

[Zythryn]

What we choose to equivocate and what we choose to minimize are at the heart of the reason that this is an issue. You parallel President Bush smoking marijuana to Ayers bombing the pentagon,...

 

First, that is a quote of mine, not Craigs:)

Second, I don't parallel Bush smoking mj to Ayers bombing the pentagon.

I parallel Bush smoking mj with Obama serving on the same board as a man who, 35 or so years ago, blew up a bathroom in the pentagon.

The two may not be identical, there are a number of differences. What they have in common is that they are issues of the past which have no bearing on the actions of today.

Obama, as others have already said, has condemned those actions of violence that occured when we was 8. I don't see why this is an issue the McCain ticket continues to try to dredge up.

It makes him look desperate and out of touch.

[Moontanman]

I would like to point out that our boy Bush was a dust monkey, I don't remember any pot smoking on his part ever being a problem but being an alcoholic is a big problem and being a dust monkey isn't exactly a great thing either. Having said that I really didn't hold any of those things against him, very few people have completely clean slates. If they do then they probably haven't really lived. None of what Bush did as a young wild and crazy guy were significant enough for me to think badly of him. Lots of the stupid stuff he did as president were really bad, I wish all he had done was get a bj in the oval office. In reality none of this stuff really matters anymore, Bush is out of there, fini, long gone..... Obama and McCain are the ones we are looking at and both of them have plenty of skeletons in their closets if you are looking at past associations. McCain has Gorden Liddy as a close friend an active supporter, not just a past acquaintance but a current active supporter, McCain left his first wife after she was injured in an auto accident, McCain was involved in the Keeting five scandal, do we hold this things against him and say he is not fit to be president? I say no, McCain is a normal human being who has had both past and current associations with less than savory people. I honestly don't think this means he is unsuitable for office. One the other hand I don't think any of Obamas associations disqualify him either. if we choose lets choose on the issues not on smears and innuendos.