35 replies to this topic

[Connor MacLeod]

Here's a CNN report on Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. One of their conclusions is that Obama is not being forthright about his relationship with this man.



I get the impression that this is following the same pattern that Obama took in the Reverend Wright scandal - deny the obvious truth until it become impossible to carry on the charade any longer. Of course, at this late point in the game there's probably not enough time to fess up, give a eloquent speech and recover; so if the heat stays on, the only option will be to try to run out the clock.

[luv2increase]

Here's a CNN report on Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. One of their conclusions is that Obama is not being forthright about his relationship with this man.



I get the impression that this is following the same pattern that Obama took in the Reverend Wright scandal - deny the obvious truth until it become impossible to carry on the charade any longer. Of course, at this late point in the game there's probably not enough time to fess up, give a eloquent speech and recover; so if the heat stays on, the only option will be to try to run out the clock.

Here soon, it will be completely idiotic for the mainstream media to continue suppressing the negative yet true information about Obama. They won't be able to hide for long and neither will Obama. I just hope all this comes into 100% fruition before election day in order for people to make a truly informed choice on who they think should be the next President of the United States of America.

[Iam Empathy]

CNN Truth Squad on McCain / Keating Economics: McCain being dishonest

Edited by Iam Empathy, 08 October 2008 - 01:15 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Here's Obama's buddy Bill Ayers back in 2001:



What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with the picture of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attending a party, thrown in his honor, at the home of a man like this? Something seems very, very wrong.

[TianZi]

Of course, virtually every major news organization has concluded that the relationship between Ayers and Obama is tenuous at best. Nothing at all like the very real close personal friendship that existed between McCain and Keating, convicted felon and chief architect of the S&L disaster of years past. It's this past relationship that has effectively prevented McCain from attacking Obama's friendship with Rezko.

_____________________

LIE: Obama and Ayers 'palled around' and have a meaningful relationship.
FACT: Multiple independent fact checkers and investigative reporters have concluded that the link between Obama and Ayers is "tenuous" and that there is "no evidence of any relationship."

--AP: Palin Claim unsubstantiated, Obama was a child at the time of bombs and he has denounced Ayers radicalism. "[T]hough she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated... Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions." [10/5/08]

--CNN Fact Check: Obama and Ayers Are Not "Palling Around." "Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now 'palling around,' or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years." [10/5/08]

--MNSBC: "Obama was never 'palling around' with Ayers." "But as the New York Times reported today, Obama was never "palling around" with Ayers. "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" [10/4/08]

--Washington Post: Obama-Ayers Link "Is A Tenuous One." The Washington Post reported in a fact check that "the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one." [Washington Post, 2/18/08]

--Time: Making An Issue Of Obama's Relationship With Ayers And Dohrn Is "Absurd." "Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd." [Time, 5/29/08]

--Chicago Sun Times: Obama's Connection To Ayers Is A "Phony Flap". The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "But Ayers, it is also true to say, has since followed in the footsteps of the great Chicago social worker Jane Addams, crusading for education and juvenile justice reform. His 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, has been praised for exposing how Cook County's juvenile justice system all but eliminates a child's chance for redemption. Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama's middle name is Hussein. That doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn't make him unpatriotic. And he's friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn't make him a bomb thrower. Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/3/08]

--Noam Scheiber Of TNR: "I Don't See Evidence Of Any Relationship" Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, "Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don't see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama's state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I'm not saying they couldn't have been casual friends; just that there isn't much evidence for that at this point." [The New Republic, 2/22/08]

--George Packer: The Obama-Ayers "Media Flap Is An Absurd And Opportunistic Piece Of Guilt By Association" That "Deserves To Die A Swift And Ignominious Death." "Now George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton, and a legion of Republican strategists are tying Bill to Obama because they sat on the board of a foundation together. What if they did? And what if they're friendly neighbors in Hyde Park? Bill and Bernardine are also friends with an old friend of mine who has a sterling reputation as a juvenile-court judge. Does that prove anything, other than that they've had successful careers in education and law, respectively? This latest media flap is an absurd and opportunistic piece of guilt by association. Unlike Obama's membership for many years in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or his comments last week in San Francisco, it raises no questions about his beliefs, only about our trivial political culture. It deserves to die a swift and ignominious death." [New Yorker, 4/18/08]

LIE: The New York Times story cited by the McCain campaign finds evidence of a relationship between Obama and Ayers.

FACT: The Very Story Cited By McCain Finds That a Review Of Records And Interviews Shows That Obama And Ayers "Do Not Appear To Have Been Close" And Obama Has Never Expressed Sympathy For The Radical Views Or Actions Of Ayers. "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8." [New York Times, 10/3/08]

LIE: Senator Obama's political career was launched at a fundraiser hosted by Ayers.

FACT: Barack Obama had served Chicago as a community organizer who helped to restore opportunity to a community devastated by a steel plant closing. After serving as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, he returned to Chicago to run a city-wide voter registration effort in 1992 that helped to deliver Illinois for Clinton-Gore. As the New York Times confirmed, previous coffees had been hosted for Obama's State Senate campaign. State Senator Alice Palmer, Obama's predecessor, introduced some of her longtime supporters to Obama at Ayers home. That's it. It wasn't even a fundraiser. [10/3/08]

LIE: The Annenberg Challenge was a radical organization that promoted a liberal agenda in schools.

FACT: The Annenberg Challenge was funded by Republican Walter Annenberg, an ambassador during the Nixon administration and friend of President Reagan's. Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar and the conservative Tribune Foundation both wrote to Annenberg requesting funds for a foundation to help Chicago schools. Republican Governor Jim Edgar and Mayor Richard Daley announced the formation of the Annenberg Challenge in a joint event, and their administrations' continued to work closely with the Challenge throughout its existence. Reading and math scores for underperforming students improved during the course of the Challenge, and as a result of the Challenge there are now hundreds more board certified teachers in Chicago Public Schools. [10/3/08]

LIE: Bill Ayers recruited Obama to the Annenberg Challenge board.

FACT: Obama met Ayers at a meeting of the Challenge Board. Deborah Leff, with whom Obama served on another board, recommended that Obama join the Annenberg Challenge. He was recruited over a dinner with board member Pat Graham. The bipartisan founding board, which included Republican Arnold Weber, elected Obama Chair. [10/3/08]

LIE: Ayers has not been accepted by any community outside of Chicago.

FACT: Ayers is known in other communities like Columbia, SC. He is currently a distinguished scholar at the University of South Carolina where Republican Governor Mark Sanford, who supported Senator McCain's campaign as far back as the 2000 primaries, serves as an ex officio member of the Board of Trustees. By Governor Palin's standards, that means Governor Sanford shares Ayers' views.

[niner]

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with the picture of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attending a party, thrown in his honor, at the home of a man like this? Something seems very, very wrong.

At least the taxpayers didn't have to fork up two billion dollars to bail out his S&L.

The real criminals would never step on a flag. They might spend thousands of dollars on Spa fees for their executives after the taxpayers have just bailed out their company, but their lapel pins are very shiny. At the spa, they probably have special lapel pin polishers. They're probably illegal aliens... Nothing wrong there. Nothing at all.

Do you think that Obama approves of everything Ayers has done in the distant past or will do in the future? If someone in your neighborhood throws a party in your honor, what are you supposed to do? Tell him "sorry, I might run for president someday, and wingers might try to smear me if I "associate" with you. Nuthin' personal."

[TianZi]

Obama haters who point to his fleeting, tenuous relationship with Ayers based primarily on his having sat on the same boards of some organizations (attending one party obviously isn't enough) need to do some fact checking, and ask and answer the following: who *ALSO* sat on those same boards? More "terrorists"?

Let me help you out: the other board members were apparently predominantly Republicans, including a very close friend of Ronald Reagan.

Rather than parroting the latest Republican talking points memo, it would be refreshing to see these posters discussing issues that have been kept off the table by the McCain campaign; namely, Obama's REAL friendship with the crook Tony Rezko. But then we'd also have to discuss McCain's infinitely more destructive friendship and support of another crook, Keating.

[Connor MacLeod]

Do you think that Obama approves of everything Ayers has done in the distant past or will do in the future?

That's not a serious question. I assume you asked it because you believe it has some rhetorical value. Let's not waste our time.

If someone in your neighborhood throws a party in your honor, what are you supposed to do? Tell him "sorry, I might run for president someday, and wingers might try to smear me if I "associate" with you. Nuthin' personal."

Let's see...if this hypothetical person were an unrepentant domestic terrorist then there's a very good chance I'd tell him to f**k off; or if I was worried he might rig my car up with explosives I might just say "no thank you." But you can be damn sure I wouldn't be attending that party. Of course, chances are good that I'll never have to deal with the situation - I just don't run in those crowds. I sincerely wish the same could be said for Barack Obama.

[Connor MacLeod]

Obama haters who point to his fleeting, tenuous relationship with Ayers based primarily on his having sat on the same boards of some organizations (attending one party obviously isn't enough)...

This report is from CNN - not exactly a rightwing Obama-hating news source - and it says that Obama is being dishonest about his relationship with Ayers.

[RighteousReason]

Of course, virtually every major news organization has concluded that the relationship between Ayers and Obama is tenuous at best. Nothing at all like the very real close personal friendship that existed between McCain and Keating, convicted felon and chief architect of the S&L disaster of years past. It's this past relationship that has effectively prevented McCain from attacking Obama's friendship with Rezko.

_____________________

LIE: Obama and Ayers 'palled around' and have a meaningful relationship.
FACT: Multiple independent fact checkers and investigative reporters have concluded that the link between Obama and Ayers is "tenuous" and that there is "no evidence of any relationship."

--AP: Palin Claim unsubstantiated, Obama was a child at the time of bombs and he has denounced Ayers radicalism. "[T]hough she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated... Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions." [10/5/08]

--CNN Fact Check: Obama and Ayers Are Not "Palling Around." "Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now 'palling around,' or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years." [10/5/08]

--MNSBC: "Obama was never 'palling around' with Ayers." "But as the New York Times reported today, Obama was never "palling around" with Ayers. "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" [10/4/08]

--Washington Post: Obama-Ayers Link "Is A Tenuous One." The Washington Post reported in a fact check that "the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one." [Washington Post, 2/18/08]

--Time: Making An Issue Of Obama's Relationship With Ayers And Dohrn Is "Absurd." "Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd." [Time, 5/29/08]

--Chicago Sun Times: Obama's Connection To Ayers Is A "Phony Flap". The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "But Ayers, it is also true to say, has since followed in the footsteps of the great Chicago social worker Jane Addams, crusading for education and juvenile justice reform. His 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, has been praised for exposing how Cook County's juvenile justice system all but eliminates a child's chance for redemption. Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama's middle name is Hussein. That doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn't make him unpatriotic. And he's friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn't make him a bomb thrower. Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/3/08]

--Noam Scheiber Of TNR: "I Don't See Evidence Of Any Relationship" Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, "Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don't see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama's state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I'm not saying they couldn't have been casual friends; just that there isn't much evidence for that at this point." [The New Republic, 2/22/08]

--George Packer: The Obama-Ayers "Media Flap Is An Absurd And Opportunistic Piece Of Guilt By Association" That "Deserves To Die A Swift And Ignominious Death." "Now George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton, and a legion of Republican strategists are tying Bill to Obama because they sat on the board of a foundation together. What if they did? And what if they're friendly neighbors in Hyde Park? Bill and Bernardine are also friends with an old friend of mine who has a sterling reputation as a juvenile-court judge. Does that prove anything, other than that they've had successful careers in education and law, respectively? This latest media flap is an absurd and opportunistic piece of guilt by association. Unlike Obama's membership for many years in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or his comments last week in San Francisco, it raises no questions about his beliefs, only about our trivial political culture. It deserves to die a swift and ignominious death." [New Yorker, 4/18/08]

LIE: The New York Times story cited by the McCain campaign finds evidence of a relationship between Obama and Ayers.

FACT: The Very Story Cited By McCain Finds That a Review Of Records And Interviews Shows That Obama And Ayers "Do Not Appear To Have Been Close" And Obama Has Never Expressed Sympathy For The Radical Views Or Actions Of Ayers. "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8." [New York Times, 10/3/08]

LIE: Senator Obama's political career was launched at a fundraiser hosted by Ayers.

FACT: Barack Obama had served Chicago as a community organizer who helped to restore opportunity to a community devastated by a steel plant closing. After serving as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, he returned to Chicago to run a city-wide voter registration effort in 1992 that helped to deliver Illinois for Clinton-Gore. As the New York Times confirmed, previous coffees had been hosted for Obama's State Senate campaign. State Senator Alice Palmer, Obama's predecessor, introduced some of her longtime supporters to Obama at Ayers home. That's it. It wasn't even a fundraiser. [10/3/08]

LIE: The Annenberg Challenge was a radical organization that promoted a liberal agenda in schools.

FACT: The Annenberg Challenge was funded by Republican Walter Annenberg, an ambassador during the Nixon administration and friend of President Reagan's. Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar and the conservative Tribune Foundation both wrote to Annenberg requesting funds for a foundation to help Chicago schools. Republican Governor Jim Edgar and Mayor Richard Daley announced the formation of the Annenberg Challenge in a joint event, and their administrations' continued to work closely with the Challenge throughout its existence. Reading and math scores for underperforming students improved during the course of the Challenge, and as a result of the Challenge there are now hundreds more board certified teachers in Chicago Public Schools. [10/3/08]

LIE: Bill Ayers recruited Obama to the Annenberg Challenge board.

FACT: Obama met Ayers at a meeting of the Challenge Board. Deborah Leff, with whom Obama served on another board, recommended that Obama join the Annenberg Challenge. He was recruited over a dinner with board member Pat Graham. The bipartisan founding board, which included Republican Arnold Weber, elected Obama Chair. [10/3/08]

LIE: Ayers has not been accepted by any community outside of Chicago.

FACT: Ayers is known in other communities like Columbia, SC. He is currently a distinguished scholar at the University of South Carolina where Republican Governor Mark Sanford, who supported Senator McCain's campaign as far back as the 2000 primaries, serves as an ex officio member of the Board of Trustees. By Governor Palin's standards, that means Governor Sanford shares Ayers' views.

Hahaha.

The Democrat party's propaganda machine (ie. CNN, MSNBC, TIME, NYT, AP, etc etc etc) does absolutely no justice to the truth.

Edited by Savage, 08 October 2008 - 03:20 PM.

[inawe]

We are involved in this war in Iraq that was not just unnecessary but very stupid. It only benefits arms manufacturers, companies like
Halliburton and Bechtel and the ones that provide security. May be oil companies in the future.
We are now in the middle of an economic and financial crisis while a few guys made up like bandits. Most of us Americans are going to pay
dearly for this shit.
How could all this happen? Well, the powers to be keep the population distracted, running after red herrings like abortion, gay marriage,
socialism this or the other. The most recent thing is that Obama said hello to a guy who almost 40 years ago did very nasty things.
I'll like to think that most Americans are smart enough to realize when they are being suckered. But it doesn't seem so.
In doing some canvassing I was talking to a few convicted felons. Does this make my a criminal?
So my advice is, either wise up or get enough Vaseline. It's going to get very painful.

[luv2increase]

CNN Truth Squad on McCain / Keating Economics: McCain being dishonest

Iam Empathy, why do you continue to troll threads??? Your post right here has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Read the title; is says, "CNN on Obama/Ayers: Obama being dishonest"!!!!!! What does "CNN Truth Squad on McCain / Keating Economics: McCain being dishonest have to do with this thread??? You have been doing this for the last few days. This shows the maturity level in which you possess, so how could anyone want to vote for the same person as you? It reflects badly upon your candidate of choice when you act in the manner in which you do!!! Either get a life or quit trolling the threads!

[luv2increase]

We are involved in this war in Iraq that was not just unnecessary but very stupid. It only benefits arms manufacturers, companies like
Halliburton and Bechtel and the ones that provide security. May be oil companies in the future.
We are now in the middle of an economic and financial crisis while a few guys made up like bandits. Most of us Americans are going to pay
dearly for this shit.
How could all this happen? Well, the powers to be keep the population distracted, running after red herrings like abortion, gay marriage,
socialism this or the other. The most recent thing is that Obama said hello to a guy who almost 40 years ago did very nasty things.
I'll like to think that most Americans are smart enough to realize when they are being suckered. But it doesn't seem so.
In doing some canvassing I was talking to a few convicted felons. Does this make my a criminal?
So my advice is, either wise up or get enough Vaseline. It's going to get very painful.

inawe, I am going to tell you the same thing as I did Iam Empathy. You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!! It is getting quite ridiculous. I am going to point it out to you. What does the

We are involved in this war in Iraq.....oil companies.....economic and financial crisis.....bandits......Halliburton and Bechtel

have to do with "CNN on Obama/Ayers: Obama being dishonest"???? Stop doing it! Do you not realize that this reflects badly on your chosen candidate? Start staying on topic in threads which you dislike or stop posting. It is getting really annoying. It's like you are a child or something.

Edited by luv2increase, 08 October 2008 - 04:35 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

(luv2increase)
inawe, I am going to tell you the same thing as I did Iam Empathy. You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!! It is getting quite ridiculous.

First, you are not in leadership here and not in a position to give orders to any other poster.

Second, there is nothing that you are lamenting that is a violation so long as there is no ad hominem nor other violation of the rules.

Third, you do not *own* the thread, you just start it and from then on it has a life of its own based on all input that is within posting guidelines.

Fourth, to demonstrate *trolling* you need to produce evidence of such and present it to the Nav's for a decision and not assume your interpretation of the facts.

Fifth, and this last is just my opinion son, as opposed to the more *official previous comments*; let's just say that maybe you should try following your own advice.

[luv2increase]

You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!! It is getting quite ridiculous.

First, you are not in leadership here and not in a position to give orders to any other poster.

It wasn't an imperative sentence. It was a suggestion, hence the keyword you've seemed to have missed "need".

Second, there is nothing that you are lamenting that is a violation so long as there is no ad hominem nor other violation of the rules.

They continue to post statements that are irrelevant to the thread or what other people post. It is a matter of decency rather than violation, hence the reason I am pointing it out rather than the moderators.

Third, you do not *own* the thread, you just start it and from then on it has a life of its own based on all input that is within posting guidelines.

Trust me; they have trolled my threads on numerous occasions in the same manner. It is disrespectful. I'm positive Connor doesn't like it either.

Fourth, to demonstrate *trolling* you need to produce evidence of such and present it to the Nav's for a decision and not assume your interpretation of the facts.

I'd say posting 100% irrelevant links and posts unrelated to the thread title and/or discussions is trolling.

Fifth, and this last is just my opinion son, as opposed to the more *official previous comments*; let's just say that maybe you should try following your own advice.

Prove it.

[maxwatt]

You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!! It is getting quite ridiculous.

First, you are not in leadership here and not in a position to give orders to any other poster.

It wasn't an imperative sentence. It was a suggestion, hence the keyword you've seemed to have missed "need".

Second, there is nothing that you are lamenting that is a violation so long as there is no ad hominem nor other violation of the rules.

They continue to post statements that are irrelevant to the thread or what other people post. It is a matter of decency rather than violation, hence the reason I am pointing it out rather than the moderators.

Third, you do not *own* the thread, you just start it and from then on it has a life of its own based on all input that is within posting guidelines.

Trust me; they have trolled my threads on numerous occasions in the same manner. It is disrespectful. I'm positive Connor doesn't like it either.

Fourth, to demonstrate *trolling* you need to produce evidence of such and present it to the Nav's for a decision and not assume your interpretation of the facts.

I'd say posting 100% irrelevant links and posts unrelated to the thread title and/or discussions is trolling.

Fifth, and this last is just my opinion son, as opposed to the more *official previous comments*; let's just say that maybe you should try following your own advice.

Prove it.

You do need to follow your own advice.

[luv2increase]

You do need to follow your own advice.

It has become obvious that since I've successfully proven maxwatt, Lazarus Long, and niner wrong on various occasions that they are not happy with me. They never ever can substantiate any of their claims against me and can't counter any of my arguments. It is ok guys; I still like ya'll.



Can anyone prove anything in the CNN thingy as being false? If you really believe that Obama is not being dishonest, state your proof which shows why you believe this. Also, don't take anything said on an Obama website or affiliate as gospel. There is something called a "conflict of interest" there.

[Lazarus Long]

(luv2increase)
It has become obvious that since I've successfully proven maxwatt, Lazarus Long, and niner wrong on various occasions that they are not happy with me. They never ever can substantiate any of their claims against me and can't counter any of my arguments. It is ok guys; I still like ya'll.

What you have done is continuous prove that you are a legend in your own mind. You have *proven* nothing about others because you have routinely failed to back up your claims except through cherry picking sources and denying that anything those opposed to your point of view offer has credibility. So let's de-construct your last reply to me together son.

You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!! It is getting quite ridiculous.

QUOTE ( @ 8-Oct 2008, 11:44 AM) *
First, you are not in leadership here and not in a position to give orders to any other poster.

It wasn't an imperative sentence. It was a suggestion, hence the keyword you've seemed to have missed "need".

The use of the word "need" as an auxiliary verb, as in the example you provide, is consistent with a demand for *requisite or obligatory compliance.* You may have meant a suggestive use but you failed to phrase the comment that way. Perhaps your command of English is subject to remedial work. I suggest you *may need* a dictionary or additional classes.

http://www.perfectyo...rammar/need.htm

Need

Need is used both as an ordinary verb and as an auxiliary verb.
As an ordinary verb

As an ordinary verb need is used in the sense of ‘require’. It has the usual forms needs and needed. Ordinary need is followed by an infinitive with to.

Note that the auxiliary form of need is rare in American English.

The auxiliary need is mainly used to ask for or give permission. It is not used to talk about habitual or general things.

* You need not work today. (Auxiliary - Particular occasion)
* You don't need to work on Sundays. (Ordinary - habitual thing)
* You need not pay for this call. (Auxiliary - Particular occasion)
* In most countries, you don't need to pay for emergency calls. (Ordinary - general thing)

BTW an alternative to a demand for the compliance interpretation with your vague use of language, is the implication of a threat when you add the multiple exclamatory punctuation.

You need to stop trolling every thread against Obama!!!

As in you *need* to comply (or else)!!!

I do not presume you were making a threat and understand your claim to mistakenly have applied the command form instead of a suggestive form that uses a more passive voice. I will assume you now understand the problem and can address your less than perfect command of English in the future.

One suggestion is the use of a modifier (like may or perhaps etc) and not to use an exclamation.

They continue to post statements that are irrelevant to the thread or what other people post. It is a matter of decency rather than violation, hence the reason I am pointing it out rather than the moderators.

Your interpretation of relevance and irrelevance is subjective to your opinion, the contrary content they provide is not objectively irrelevant. Hence if you have a problem with what is irrelevant in your mind then you must learn to prove it to be so and make a formal complaint. Your *proof* will be examined and if it holds water will be acted on. If it is not objectively certain then it will have no result.

In fact posting irrelevancies can be interpreted to violate our rules if it is determined to be intentionally disruptive. However most examples you insinuate to be irrelevant are simply your denial of validity, that is not irrelevant but instead directly relevant to a topic. Topics are subject to debate as you are well aware so do not expect to post any content that is not subject to being evaluated and challenged for credibility by subsequent posters and attacking their commentary by attempting to attack the poster's intelligence, education etc is actually a form of ad hominem and is itself a violation of our rules, subject to being penalized.

Trust me; they have trolled my threads on numerous occasions in the same manner. It is disrespectful. I'm positive Connor doesn't like it either.

Why should I trust you?

Son, I do not even know you.

Trust is irrelevant to the issue and your standards of decency are also irrelevant except as they coincide with the rules of conduct for this organization and the law of the land. As neither is inherently violated by any examples you have provided then whether you (and others) *like it or not* is also irrelevant.

I'd say posting 100% irrelevant links and posts unrelated to the thread title and/or discussions is trolling.

The issue of relevancy is important but is neither subject to an absolute standard or your personal dictates.

Hence you may have an argument if a post or link is so tangentially relevant that an objective analysis might ascertain a 1% association on topic. However if the relevance were determined to be say 30% by one viewer and 60% by another it would none the less still be relevant.

Your lack of understanding or appreciation of relevance is not in itself validation of the claim. You have often demonstrated an inability to understand complex issues, though I do agree son, that is simply my opinion.

Prove it.

I just did.

Oh I realize that you are more interested in my wasting considerable time to dissect the numerous times that you went into other people's threads with tenuous material to contradict their claims but as I pointed out above it is irrelevant. It is however an example of the *pot calling the kettle black*, hence son I respectfully suggest that you learn to *do on to others as you would have them do on to you* and not complain when they *do on to you exactly as they have been done to.*

Either way you would agree that two wrongs do not make a right; correct?

So in closing if someone violates the rules please communicate with a nav to address the issue and there will be a follow up but stop trying to routinely push the limits of civil discourse through the use of suggestive ad hominem and innuendo.

Also since you appear to fail to understand it, ad hominem is a fallacious form of argument and the definition is:

http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the folhttp://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=24826#
Complete Editlowing form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Even a cursory review of your arguments and rebuttals can demonstrate your consistent application of this fallacy.

As I have advised others son, please refrain from making any personal commentary when attempting to challenge their positions. It may require a more educated and professional caliber of response than you are used to but I am confident you can get it.

[luv2increase]

I suggest you *may need* a dictionary or additional classes.

You are abusing your authority Lazarus. You need to set an example. This is an extreme example of an ad-hominem remark.

attack the poster's intelligence, education etc is actually a form of ad hominem and is itself a violation of our rules, subject to being penalized.

And your public English lesson via this thread is not a "violation of our rules". I think if you would actually abide by the rules of Imminst, you would have PM'd me the information rather than trying to destroy my reputation via this public avenue. That is horrible that you would do that to someone who has paid to be a member of this institute.

Son, I do not even know you.

Your continual use of the derogatory (in this instance) use of the word "Son" is offending me. You are being a hypocrite because you are telling me not to do stuff, yet you are blatantly doing it to me.

As I have advised others son

May I ask what exactly it is you do for a living? Do you work in a professional field of any sort?

It may require a more educated and professional caliber of response than you are used to but I am confident you can get it.

And then he topped it off with a direct threat. I hate to say it, but that whole post of yours made you look like a hypocritical jerk.

Edited by luv2increase, 08 October 2008 - 10:55 PM.

[maxwatt]

Ahem.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the CNN video presents two sides, one guilt by innuendo, the other denial of the significance of this.

It is no smoking gun. From what I can see of CNN and NBC polling, the Ayers attack is not resonating with anyone but the Republican base, and certainly not with the swing voters McCain needs to win over. All McCain's ads are negative attack ads. Negative ads work for a while, but when the public grows immune, it reflects back on the one making the charge. Look at the polls.
www.electoral-vote.com

[luv2increase]

It is no smoking gun. From what I can see of CNN and NBC polling, the Ayers attack is not resonating with anyone but the Republican base, and certainly not with the swing voters McCain needs to win over. All McCain's ads are negative attack ads. Negative ads work for a while, but when the public grows immune, it reflects back on the one making the charge. Look at the polls.
www.electoral-vote.com

Two words: cognitive dissonance


http://en.wikipedia....tive_dissonance

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.

Often one of the ideas is a fundamental element of ego, like "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can result in rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice, or in other cases. Prevention of cognitive dissonance may also contribute to confirmation bias or denial of discomforting evidence.

People like to stay consistent with their beliefs. It would take a miracle for the people who have already decided to vote for Obama to change their mind and vote for McCain.

Edited by luv2increase, 09 October 2008 - 03:18 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ahem.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the CNN video presents two sides, one guilt by innuendo, the other denial of the significance of this.

I think the main point of the CNN report is that the Obama campaign and Obama himself are dishonestly trying to minimize the extent of the relations between Obama and Ayers. This follows in the same pattern of what occurred with the Reverend Wright deal (e.g. "I never heard him say those things.") It doesn't matter whether you're an Obama supporter or not - in all honestly we all know these denials are complete nonsense. The real question is why is he denying these matters, and to what degree should it/will it impact the degree to which the U.S. citizens will be able to trust him? Trust is an important thing that has been lacking for quite some time. I'm afraid Obama's past associations (Wright, Pfleger, Ayers) and his less than honest attempts to brush over these things over, already starts him out with a deficit in this regard. If things turn from bad to worse either financially or on some national security matter, things could get really ugly. If Obama is elected I'm afraid we're going to be in for a really rocky 4 to 8 years - not necessarily through any fault of his own (though his past association will provide the kindling.) Though I'm not entirely enthused about McCain, I think having a Republican president and a Democratic majority congress will engender not only more balanced policy decisions, but also a more stable psyche among the U.S. electorate. I think the importance of the latter cannot be discounted during difficult times. But in any case, I'm an American first and I'll support whoever is elected. I have no intention of changing jobs or moving to Canada.

[biknut]

Ahem.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the CNN video presents two sides, one guilt by innuendo, the other denial of the significance of this.

It is no smoking gun. From what I can see of CNN and NBC polling, the Ayers attack is not resonating with anyone but the Republican base, and certainly not with the swing voters McCain needs to win over. All McCain's ads are negative attack ads. Negative ads work for a while, but when the public grows immune, it reflects back on the one making the charge. Look at the polls.
www.electoral-vote.com

I disagree. This is a very good thing to be saying about Obama because it's true, but the best is yet to come. Just wait till about the last 10 days before the election. The sihts going to hit the fan. McCain's a military man. He knows when it's time to fire. It's not time yet, but soon.

More infromation is coming, and when it comes out there's not going to be time for Obama to do anything about it.

BTW two days ago Zogby had Obama up by only 3 points. Yesterday 2 points, 1.9 really. The error was 2.5

[luv2increase]

More infromation is coming, and when it comes out there's not going to be time for Obama to do anything about it.

That is why Obama is pushing this early voting thing. He wants as many people as possible to vote for him before everything comes out. Also, the Fight the Smear and all the other supposed fact sites are just a deterrent to cloud people's judgment for the time being so they don't know what to believe.

McCain is going to win whether it be because more people vote for him or when Obama turns in his birth certificate and shows it is a fraud.

[niner]

If Obama is elected I'm afraid we're going to be in for a really rocky 4 to 8 years - not necessarily through any fault of his own (though his past association will provide the kindling.)

After the past 8 years of deregulation and free market worship, I suspect that regardless of who is elected, they, and we will be in for a rocky 4 to 8 years. You freely admit that it is not necessarily through any fault of Obama's, which I accept, but could you explain how Obama's past associations will provide "the kindling" for anything, much less the probably rocky times ahead?

I'm an American first and I'll support whoever is elected. I have no intention of changing jobs or moving to Canada.

That's good to hear. Did you support Clinton? I'm just curious because a lot of people on the right were bent on undermining him from day one. The same could be said about people on the left and Bush. Of course, being an American means being free to criticise your government if you believe that they are acting inappropriately.

[niner]

Do you think that Obama approves of everything Ayers has done in the distant past or will do in the future?

That's not a serious question. I assume you asked it because you believe it has some rhetorical value. Let's not waste our time.

I don't think it's wasting any more time than your claims that Obama is being dishonest about his relationship with Ayers. The relationship with Ayers is a non-issue, and the right is trying to blow it out of proportion for political gain. Obama is not being given an opportunity to detail his exact relationship with Ayers. In our soundbite news culture, he has only a few seconds to put a message out that counters the smear. You've also raised the issue of trust: Aren't you concerned about the lies that keep coming, over and over again, from McCain and Palin? Despite the fact that they've been called on them countless times, and obviously know what the truth is, how many times has McCain said that "Obama will raise your taxes" when addressing a general crowd (as opposed to a crowd of wealthy Wall Street CEOs)? How many times did Palin say she said no to the bridge to nowhere? I used to have some admiration for McCain, back in 2000. I wish he'd been elected instead of Bush! But at this point I have lost any shred of respect that I once had for him.

[luv2increase]

how many times has McCain said that "Obama will raise your taxes" when addressing a general crowd (as opposed to a crowd of wealthy Wall Street CEOs)?

Obama has a voting record in raising the taxes on the middle class while being in the Senate. How are people supposed to believe him when he says isn't going to raise them? He doesn't have a record to suggest that is the direction he would go. In fact, his record shows the opposite. Concluding from this, unless you are a psychic which I don't believe in, how in the world niner can you say without a doubt that Obama is not going to raise taxes and what proof would make you believe this? Are you basing this completely on what the man says? I surely hope not.

[Connor MacLeod]

That's good to hear. Did you support Clinton? I'm just curious because a lot of people on the right were bent on undermining him from day one.

I voted for Clinton.

The same could be said about people on the left and Bush. Of course, being an American means being free to criticise your government if you believe that they are acting inappropriately.

Yes, I should have said that better: by giving my support to the president I mean I will view the job he is doing through the lens of an American rather than a member of this or that party (I have always registered independent by the way.) In any case, the situation was already bad during the Clinton admininstration, and it became much worse during the Bush administration - and the seeds for that had sprouted well before the invasion of Iraq I should add. Seeing all the conspiracies brewing at my university (in a very liberal part of the country) is in part why I found myself in the position of a reluctant defender of Bush - not a role that I particularly relished. In any case, I am convinced there is a psychological illness going on here. Unfortunately, as I indicated in my previous post I'm afraid Obama, in part because of his past associations with Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, etc., is not well-positioned to break this cycle - especially if his presidency is marked by significant challeges which seems very likely. I think a McCain presidency along with a Democratic congress would be the best realistic hope to halt the descending cycle of madness. Of course, even better would be a Democratic presidency with a Republican congress but that out of the realm of possibility.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 09 October 2008 - 05:09 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Do you think that Obama approves of everything Ayers has done in the distant past or will do in the future?

That's not a serious question. I assume you asked it because you believe it has some rhetorical value. Let's not waste our time.

I don't think it's wasting any more time than your claims that Obama is being dishonest about his relationship with Ayers.

Those are not my claims, it's the CNN report that's concluding that Obama is being dishonest about his relationship with Ayers. Do you really find that so surprising? How different is this from how he reacted to the Reverend Wright thing? It doesn't seem to be out of character for him.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 09 October 2008 - 05:11 AM.

[luv2increase]

Weather Underground Victim Says Obama Should Have Known of Ayers' Past
John Murtagh says Barack Obama should have known better than to associate with William Ayers, whose Weather Underground group claimed responsibility for firebombing his family's home nearly four decades ago.

A Yonkers, N.Y., councilman whose home was bombed nearly four decades ago by the Weather Underground says Barack Obama should know better than to associate with the domestic terror group's co-founder, Bill Ayers.

"Barack Obama constantly says, 'I was only 8 years old when this happened.' That's kind of his throwaway line," John Murtagh told FOX News Thursday morning.

"I'm not questioning what Barack Obama was doing when he was 8 years old. I'm questioning his behavior as an adult to choose his friends, mentor and longtime personal and professional colleague."

Murtagh discussed the 1970 bombing as John McCain's campaign put renewed focus on Obama's ties to Ayers, who lives in Chicago and is an education professor at the University of Illinois.

Murtagh, whose father was a New York Supreme Court justice when his family's home was targeted, put out a statement on behalf of McCain's campaign Wednesday claiming "Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family."

Obama has said his relationship with Ayers did not extend beyond serving with him on an education board in Chicago. He has condemned Ayers' Vietnam War-era attacks, and his campaign has said Obama did not know of Ayers' radical past when Ayers held a campaign event at his home for Obama in 1995.

But Murtagh cast doubt on the narrative out of the Obama campaign, saying it would make the Democratic presidential candidate "the dumbest man that ever graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School" if he didn't initially know about Ayers' past.

Murtagh also alleged that Obama's ties to Ayers probably go back earlier, since Ayers' wife, Weather Underground radical Bernadine Dohrn, at one point worked at the same firm where Obama's wife, Michelle, worked.

"The Weather Underground launched an attack on our family home ... looking to kill us," Murtagh told FOX News. "I believe if the senator were to come clean and tell us the full story, we'd find out this relationship well predates the fundraiser held in the Ayers home. It goes back to the '80s."

McCain released a Web video Thursday criticizing Obama for his relationship with Ayers.

Obama told ABC News Wednesday that McCain's campaign is making these assertions simply "to score cheap political points."

http://elections.fox...own-ayers-past/