Fox, here's your proof. I expect a full mea culpa.

[fossten]

Ayers: Oh, by the way, Obama and I actually are “family friends”

posted at 9:05 pm on November 13, 2008 by Allahpundit

Via Ace. The bad news? Obama was lying to us when he dismissed Ayers at the debate as merely “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” The good news? We already knew that, thanks to Axelrod and Mayor Daley.

Anyway, belated confirmation.

“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign,” he writes.

But right-wing commentators tried to use those connections to smear Obama, he says.

“Obama’s political rivals and enemies apparently saw an opportunity to deepen a dishonest narrative about him, that he is somehow un-American, alien, linked to radical ideas, a closet terrorist, a sympathizer with extremism,” Ayers wrote.

This turd will be on Good Morning America tomorrow to hawk his book, if you can believe it. Will Diane Sawyer think to ask him how friendly the families were? Or, more importantly, what he learned from his epochal meeting of the minds recently with Reverend Wright? A rich trove of video treasure awaits us in the morning, my friends. Exit question: Has anyone queried The One on what sorts of crimes one would have to commit to lose their coveted “family friend” status? I realize questions of basic personal judgment are inappropriate on “dishonest narrative” grounds, but I’m curious nonetheless.

 

[shagdrum]

Here is the link to the original story...

Also, here is what Mayor Daley had to say...

"People keep trying to align himself with Barack Obama," Daley said. "It's really unfortunate. They're friends. So what? People do make mistakes in the past. You move on. This is a new century, a new time. He reflects back and he's been making a strong contribution to our community."
​

And what Obama's cheif strategist, David Axelrod had to say...

Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school...They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.​

 

[foxpaws]

Mea culpa – my fault – I guess I don’t understand foss…. But it is latin... ohhhh, my favorite...

Was I mistaken – is that what you are saying? I certainly was when I stated that I thought that they were acquaintances, were neighbors, served on boards together, I didn’t think that the word ‘friends’ would be in the equation.

I wasn’t arguing in that thread whether they were or weren't ‘friends’. In the whole debate I was actually going against Kurtz and his viewpoint that the two were extremely close political cohorts, which if anything, Ayer’s short statement supports the fact that they weren’t political allies in the past, and certainly aren’t now. And certainly there is nothing about Ayers being some sort of political mentor to Obama.

Kurtz supposed in his article “With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership.”

But I will certainly be at fault (I guess mea culpa????) if indeed there is evidence of Obama having an ongoing political relationship with Ayers. I would be interested to see when they last spoke, and if indeed they were close political partners at any time – maybe we will find out on TV tomorrow.

 

[shagdrum]

Mea culpa – my fault – I guess I don’t understand foss…. But it is latin... ohhhh, my favorite...

Was I mistaken – is that what you are saying? I certainly was when I stated that I thought that they were acquaintances, were neighbors, served on boards together, I didn’t think that the word ‘friends’ would be in the equation.

I wasn’t arguing in that thread whether they were or weren't ‘friends’. In the whole debate I was actually going against Kurtz and his viewpoint that the two were extremely close political cohorts, which if anything, Ayer’s short statement supports the fact that they weren’t political allies in the past, and certainly aren’t now. And certainly there is nothing about Ayers being some sort of political mentor to Obama.

Kurtz supposed in his article “With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership.”

But I will certainly be at fault (I guess mea culpa????) if indeed there is evidence of Obama having an ongoing political relationship with Ayers. I would be interested to see when they last spoke, and if indeed they were close political partners at any time – maybe we will find out on TV tomorrow.

The whole point that Kurtz was making (and everyone else not in denial about this) was that Obama was lying about his relationship with Ayers and that the relationship was such that they were exchanging political ideas on a regular basis. Obama's ties with Ayers are a reflection on his character and his judgement. This further vidicates Kurtz and shows that they did have a rather close relationship. To not admit as much is to be delusional.

 

[foxpaws]

The whole point that Kurtz was making (and everyone else not in denial about this) was that Obama was lying about his relationship with Ayers and that the relationship was such that they were exchanging political ideas on a regular basis. Obama's ties with Ayers are a reflection on his character and his judgement. This further vidicates Kurtz and shows that they did have a rather close relationship. To not admit as much is to be delusional.

Shag - how could you post that after the interview this morning?

It wasn't softball boys...

No need for me to say 'my mistake'. How about Kurtz - is he going to come forward and now say - whoops - sorry, I guess I connected the dots (the 'supposed source' that he never justified in his article regarding the two mens' relationship) incorrectly? That the two men weren't involved in any close and ongoing political partnership.

Ayers actually said that the two never discussed political thought. And they knew each other in a 'professional' way - like thousands of others knew Obama in the Chicago area.

The interview...

I personally like the discussion of the politics of fear, how the American people didn't bend to it, and how guilt by association is sooooo wrong.

And if you think Ayers would bend to anyone's will - well, let's just say - look at his past...

 

[Garbone]

"...I personally like the discussion of the politics of fear, how the American people didn't bend to it, and how guilt by association is sooooo wrong".

Maybe, but his(Obama's) judgement can certainly be challenged, by the associations he keeps.
I know I would have some questions, if one of my teenage sons started hanging with the bully, or dope smokers...they may not BE guilty, but they certainly LOOK guilty, and that is the image a president cant convey.

The world is watching, and this "association" definately shows bad judgement, and questionable character.

 

[Calabrio]

Here's a newsflash...
Fox agrees with Ayers on damn near everything.

They're on the same page. We're all sitting here implying that Ayers is radical left, but the fact is HE IS THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.

 

[shagdrum]

No need for me to say 'my mistake'. How about Kurtz - is he going to come forward and now say - whoops - sorry, I guess I connected the dots (the 'supposed source' that he never justified in his article regarding the two mens' relationship) incorrectly? That the two men weren't involved in any close and ongoing political partnership.

The fact that they were working to inject politics into schools and Obama started his political career at Ayers house doesn't show them as having some sort of poitical alliance?! You are being delusional.

Ayers actually said that the two never discussed political thought. And they knew each other in a 'professional' way - like thousands of others knew Obama in the Chicago area.

Of course he is going to downplay their relationship. And if sitting on the same board together, a board pushing Ayers agenda is not knowing someone in a "professional" way when it comes to politics, I don't know what is...

Can't you just admit when you are wrong?

 

[Marcus]

The fact that they were working to inject politics into schools and Obama started his political career at Ayers house doesn't show them as having some sort of poitical alliance?! You are being delusional.



Of course he is going to downplay their relationship. And if sitting on the same board together, a board pushing Ayers agenda is not knowing someone in a "professional" way when it comes to politics, I don't know what is...

Can't you just admit when you are wrong?

What political agenda of Ayers' was pushed on schools?

 

[fossten]

But I will certainly be at fault (I guess mea culpa????) if indeed there is evidence of Obama having an ongoing political relationship with Ayers. I would be interested to see when they last spoke, and if indeed they were close political partners at any time – maybe we will find out on TV tomorrow.

Classic moving the goalposts.

You were wrong and you know it.

 

[ford nut]

The fact that they were working to inject politics into schools and Obama started his political career at Ayers house doesn't show them as having some sort of poitical alliance?! You are being delusional.



Of course he is going to downplay their relationship. And if sitting on the same board together, a board pushing Ayers agenda is not knowing someone in a "professional" way when it comes to politics, I don't know what is...

Can't you just admit when you are wrong?

Down playing it ???
He says they NEVER had one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-denies-being-friends-with-Barack-Obama.html

In fact, Mr Ayers said he didn't even know Mr Obama when he hosted the event at his home in the Chicago neighbourhood where the two live. He added that he agreed to have the meet-the-candidate event after a state senator asked him to.

"I think he was probably in 20 homes that day as far as I know," he said. "But that was the first time I really met him."

foxpaws has proved more then once Kurtz is a joke.
Can't you just admit when you are wrong ?

 

[foxpaws]

The fact that they were working to inject politics into schools and Obama started his political career at Ayers house doesn't show them as having some sort of poitical alliance?! You are being delusional.

Can't you just admit when you are wrong?

You were wrong and you know it.

I am not surprised at both of your replies Foss and Shag. I was ready to admit I was wrong - I certainly admitted I was surprised with the introduction of the word 'friend'.

Was I mistaken – is that what you are saying? I certainly was when I stated that I thought that they were acquaintances, were neighbors, served on boards together, I didn’t think that the word ‘friends’ would be in the equation.

However Ayers himself stated that they had no political discussions.

How many community interest boards have you sat on Shag? Or even you Foss? I have sat on lots. Recently I sat on a board that included Bill Owens, our ex-governor. I went to dozens of meetings, I had gone to a few meals with members of that board, which Owens also attended. As a group we wandered to Starbucks many times after meetings, and I had drinks after board meetings with the man.

He is as conservative as it gets. He cheated on his wife in the governor's mansion, with some intern (however there wasn't any blue dress involved). I was extremely glad to see him out of political office, and would work very hard to make sure he doesn't hold political office again.

I obviously however agree with his political philosophy, his moral standards, his overall ideal of governing because I spent time with him on a community board, had drinks with him, sat with him at meals.

That is what both of you are stating. Can't you see that your logic is very flawed? Do you have any idea of how community boards function?

Wake up guys - Ayers' statement confirms my point.

Obviously you can't even say that there might be some questions to Kurtz's allegations. Why not?

Is it really such a male territory thing that you always have to be 100% right? Do you have to mark your territory all of the time? Don't you get tired of lifting your leg?

Here's a newsflash...
Fox agrees with Ayers on damn near everything.

Ok Calabrio. Let's see. from your previous posts... I am a willing victim, I deserved to be called an Obama bitch, and now I agree with Ayers on damn near everything.

Well, I won't compare you, Calabrio, to any political figures, call you names, or cast aspersions on your character.

However there is one descriptor that I certainly won't be using to refer to you, Calabrio, and that would be to call you a gentleman.

 

[fossten]

Nope. You moved the goalposts yet again. We could produce video of Obama and Ayers getting drunk together and sharing secrets, and you'd just say it was a business dinner.

Face it lady - you're in denial. You'll see - Ayers will be Secretary of Education or something like that.

 

[shagdrum]

How many community interest boards have you sat on Shag? Or even you Foss? I have sat on lots. Recently I sat on a board that included Bill Owens, our ex-governor. I went to dozens of meetings, I had gone to a few meals with members of that board, which Owens also attended. As a group we wandered to Starbucks many times after meetings, and I had drinks after board meetings with the man.

He is as conservative as it gets. He cheated on his wife in the governor's mansion, with some intern (however there wasn't any blue dress involved). I was extremely glad to see him out of political office, and would work very hard to make sure he doesn't hold political office again.

Did you launch a political career at his house? Did he ever donate to your campaign? Did you endorse a book he wrote? Do you live in the same neighborhood? Was the board you sat on with Owens promoting Owens "radical" views at the time? Do you live in the same neighborhood? Has he called you (or would he call you) a "family friend"? Do you have a husband that held a panel that featured the two of you?

Unless all those things are an affirmative, this is a false analogy and you are cherry picking what facts to compare on at least the Obama/Ayers end of things.

There is much more then a preponderance of evidence win it comes to Obama and Ayers having close ties.

 

[ford nut]

Did you launch a political career at his house? Did he ever donate to your campaign? Did you endorse a book he wrote? Do you live in the same neighborhood? Was the board you sat on with Owens promoting Owens "radical" views at the time? Do you live in the same neighborhood? Has he called you (or would he call you) a "family friend"? Do you have a husband that held a panel that featured the two of you?

Unless all those things are an affirmative, this is a false analogy and you are cherry picking what facts to compare on at least the Obama/Ayers end of things.

There is much more then a preponderance of evidence win it comes to Obama and Ayers having close ties.

You keep beating the same tired drum.
Its the same drum that helped Obama get elected.
It just shows how far off the deep end the far right has gone.
No wonder the Dems control everything.
Keep beating it and you will help insure the conservatives will never hold all the power again.
The party has gone too far to the right and now holds narrow vision that main street america is not in step with.
Open your eyes.

 

[Calabrio]

Ok Calabrio. Let's see. from your previous posts... I am a willing victim, I deserved to be called an Obama bitch, and now I agree with Ayers on damn near everything.

No, but I will say that this tactic your using right here is dishonest. I never said you, or anyone else, deserved to be called an "obama bitch."

Well, I won't compare you, Calabrio, to any political figures, call you names, or cast aspersions on your character.

Good, I will continue to do that as well.

However there is one descriptor that I certainly won't be using to refer to you, Calabrio, and that would be to call you a gentleman.

Are you playing the victim or being a bitch, forgive me if I'm confused?

Again, you have mischaracterized what I've said in the past, so your indigment is unfair and, frankly, wrong.

Why is identifying your political belief system considered casting aspersions on your character? I realize it's completely unfair for me to expect you to prove the negative, but I'm going to at least request it. Where do you an Bill Ayers tend to differ in political ideology, short of the use of violence? I don't think there's very much difference at all.

I stand by what I said, Ayers is embraced and held up as an intellectual in the liberal academic and "intellectual" circles. He IS the modern base of the Democrat party. He is the direction that the Democrat party is quickly headed. Just as the Heritage Foundation represents dominant Republican thought, Bill Ayers and the rest of the University academia represent the Democrat party.

 

[Calabrio]

You keep beating the same tired drum.
Its the same drum that helped Obama get elected.
It just shows how far off the deep end the far right has gone.
No wonder the Dems control everything.
Keep beating it and you will help insure the conservatives will never hold all the power again.
The party has gone too far to the right and now holds narrow vision that main street america is not in step with.
Open your eyes.

So, you just don't think that's a big deal?
You don't think their association is important?

Do you not care that Obama and he APPEAR to share political philosophy, or do you think they really have nothing in common, other than geography? Or- do you think it's good that they are working together for the same common goal?

 

[foxpaws]

I never moved the goalposts Foss - in fact this was the goalpost stated by me... The first mention of what needed to be discussed regarding Ayers and Obama - post 19 on the now locked "Obama is a decent person: McCain" thread

Originally Posted by foxpaws
And the Ayers (terrorist) thing...

Guilt by association is a pretty leaky boat. I am sure you have taken money from, had business dealings with, belong to the same church, or went to dinner a few times with people who may be radical in their beliefs - left or right. That doesn't mean you agree with their philosophies.

This whole argument was about 'guilt by association'. We went into Kurtz's article and other spurs of the debate -but the original goalpost was the whole 'guilt by association' problem. And I have never moved that goalpost, in fact I wasn't the one that even added to it - the reason I got into the other stuff was because of all the erroneous implications that were being circulated, i.e. the Kurtz article.

And, why can't you get your whole thought process around the fact that Ayer's said they never discussed political thought? Obviously the truth could bite you in the butt with 4 inch fangs and you would deny the puncher wounds.

Originally Posted by shagdrum
Did you launch a political career at his house? Did he ever donate to your campaign? Did you endorse a book he wrote? Do you live in the same neighborhood? Was the board you sat on with Owens promoting Owens "radical" views at the time? Do you live in the same neighborhood? Has he called you (or would he call you) a "family friend"? Do you have a husband that held a panel that featured the two of you?

Your analogy doesn't work because I am on the opposite side of the political fence - But, I can easily make the analogy work. Heck, you and I could be neighbors in the real world, sit on the same board. I might have a party for the board members where you are present and talk about your upcoming political aspirations, my brother might schedule us as speakers at a local fundraiser for a children's advocacy group, because we both sit on a board that represents local education interests. I might call you 'friend'. Should that relationship be scrutinized as 'guilt by association'? Of course not, we aren't even in the same universe as far as political thought, but in your narrow world (along with Kurtz's) we would be political partners. Your association with a very liberal, quasi radical (well, if you listen to Calabrio, extremely radical, in fact I am probably a borderline terrorist) person would be cause for you to be basically disqualified for political office.

No one would qualify for political office under your narrow definition.

Heck, almost all of my past and current 'friends with benefits' are conservative - very conservative. Guess what - it doesn't rub off guys, even after prolong periods of rubbing. Are you that weak minded Shag and Foss - that you couldn't be around a liberal for a period of time, and emerge with your principles and convictions intact (thanks you know who... )?

Guilt by association is as wrong as it gets.

Originally Posted by Calabrio
No, but I will say that this tactic your using right here is dishonest. I never said you, or anyone else, deserved to be called an "obama bitch."

Your statements regarding this...

But, you're wearing an Obama button, so you're probably comfortable with perpetual victimhood.

Perhaps you'll find someone who mutters something under the breath, but who cares. (in reference to 'bitch')

Obviously you feel it is fine that I am called a bitch because I had an Obama button on, you certainly don't care. And that I am comfortable with my perpetual victimhood.

I realize it's completely unfair for me to expect you to prove the negative, but I'm going to at least request it. Where do you an Bill Ayers tend to differ in political ideology, short of the use of violence? I don't think there's very much difference at all.

Am I close to Ayers politically? What do you really know about me politically? Foss happens to know I am pro 2nd amendment... Ayers' isn't at all, he supports pretty restrictive gun control (which I think is really odd for revolutionist). That certainly is a huge difference.

I have many, many instances where Ayers and I don't march - but, I really don't need to go into my entire politically philosophy here. Heck, aren't women suppose to be 'mysterious'?

You make a lot of blanket assumptions about me, Calabrio - A little bit of advice - don't. You might fit into some 'cookie cutter' description of right wing core republican, but I wouldn't ever assume that you do. I know very little about your political views on many subjects. And as a rule of thumb I never blindly 'categorize' anyone, it is a very bad thing to do.

Just because I defend someone who I felt has been wronged doesn't mean that I support all of their views.

And as far as saying that Ayers represents dominant Democrat thought - actually go to Brookings if you want to look at modern Democrat thought.

And Foss, you are a betting man - what do you want to wager on Ayers ending up as Secretary of Education? I have a couple of grand I would be willing to put up... (Oh, not as a bet, but I think it will be Klein).

 

[shagdrum]

I never moved the goalposts Foss - in fact this was the goalpost stated by me... The first mention of what needed to be discussed regarding Ayers and Obama - post 19 on the now locked "Obama is a decent person: McCain" thread

You needed to provide a rational justification for where you set the goalposts in the first place. You can't just arbitrarily set them where you please.

This whole argument was about 'guilt by association'. We went into Kurtz's article and other spurs of the debate -but the original goalpost was the whole 'guilt by association' problem. And I have never moved that goalpost, in fact I wasn't the one that even added to it - the reason I got into the other stuff was because of all the erroneous implications that were being circulated, i.e. the Kurtz article.

No, it was not "guilt by association". It was mischaracterized by the pro-Obama side as "guilt by association'. The argument made was not at all claiming that Obama was in any way guilty of the crimes of Ayers (which would be necessary for it to be guilt by association). It was a reflection of Obama's character and judgement in who he associated with, which is a completely different argument, and a claimed "political alliance".

Considering the strong perponderance of evidence (including the facts that Obama started his political career in Ayers house and chaired a board that was specifically pushing Ayers education agenda, which proves the political alliance part), it is clear that Kurtz was vindicated. Weather they actually "discussed political thought" is irrelevant. It is clear that they were on the same page, that Obama had no problem with Ayers terrorist past and that their relationship was much more then an "association".

And, why can't you get your whole thought process around the fact that Ayer's said they never discussed political thought? Obviously the truth could bite you in the butt with 4 inch fangs and you would deny the puncher wounds.

Someone who is so irrational as to not be at all repentant about his violent terrorism doesn't have much credibility to any decent person, Fox.

 

[foxpaws]

You needed to provide a rational justification for where you set the goalposts in the first place. You can't just arbitrarily set them where you please.

So, I wait for you to arbitrarily set them Shag? Are you and foss the only ones who get to decide where the goalposts are?

The first debatable point in the Ayers discussion was the whole idea of 'guilt by association'. Go back and read that thread Shag - initially that is what we were arguing. You tried to move Ayers and Obama into a closer relationship by using the Kurtz op ed piece, which attempted to show them as close political allies so you could move the argument to 'reflection of character.' I believe that Kurtz has never proved them to be close political allies, and that indeed Ayers has confirmed that point with his Good Morning America interview.

You were the one that moved the goalposts to this 'reflection of character' point, I was arguing that the goalposts should remain at 'guilt by association' since it has never been proven that the two men had any sort of close political ties, I stand by that conclusion, the men have never been shown to have close political ties.

But, since you blindly follow Kurtz, won't let go of op ed source (that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in a debate - to allow op ed, you would be all over me shag if I tried to insert op ed into any argument, and rightfully so) - OK, so be it - I don't have to cry 'goalposts moving' I can argue just as successfully on the point of 'reflection of character' as well...

Odd that Sarah Palin can 'pal' around with Secessionists, McCain can 'pal' around with a completely different brand of domestic terrorist (G Gordon Liddy) and they never were questioned (by me at the very least) to whether they were creating some sort of 'political alliance'.

Should we delve into those relationships Shag? Of course not - it is not applicable. Just because Sarah sleeps with a Secessionist doesn't mean that she is on the same 'political alliance page', nor is it a reflection of her character. Heck Liddy refers to McCain as 'an old friend', McCain has said that he is proud of Liddy and his family, McCain has been on his radio show, and Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser, and when speaking of Liddy McCain said, "... congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." I wonder what warped principles and philosophies that Liddy is fond of spewing McCain is referring to? By your (and Kurtz's) definition doesn't that mean that McCain should be seen as having a 'political alliance' with the nut case?

It is clear that they were on the same page, that Obama HAD no problem with Ayers terrorist past and that their relationship WAS much more then an "association".

If you use that flawed logic than obviously McCain HAS no problem (he was most recently on Liddy's radio show about 1 year ago) with Liddy's terrorist past, that they are on the same 'page' and that their relationship IS much more than an "association". Note the time frame difference shag - Liddy is a current 'relationship'.

I certainly don't believe that bunk - how could you believe that same philosophical bunk that is being spoon fed you by Kurtz regarding Obama and Ayers?

Someone who is so irrational as to not be at all repentant about his violent terrorism doesn't have much credibility to any decent person, Fox.

We differ greatly on our viewpoint of Ayers Shag, just as we could differ greatly on our viewpoint of Liddy -but, this debate was never about our viewpoints of anyone - it was about 'guilt by association', and now apparently (new goalpost) how the candidates' 'associations' are a reflection of their character and judgment. What do you want to change the debate to now?

 

[fossten]

Give it up, fellas. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with someone in sheer denial. Even when Cokehead wrecks the country, she'll still vote for his reelection.

 

[shagdrum]

So, I wait for you to arbitrarily set them Shag? Are you and foss the only ones who get to decide where the goalposts are?

Now you are getting desparate. I always provide a rational justification for my placement of the burden of proof. There is nothing "arbitrary" about it.

Here is what I wrote in post # 41 of that other thread:

...in determining who will be the leader of the free world and commander in chief, the precautionary principle applies and the level or proof is much lower then that; effectively at the preponderance of evidence level, which has more then been met.
​

The first debatable point in the Ayers discussion was the whole idea of 'guilt by association'. Go back and read that thread Shag - initially that is what we were arguing. You tried to move Ayers and Obama into a closer relationship by using the Kurtz op ed piece, which attempted to show them as close political allies so you could move the argument to 'reflection of character.' I believe that Kurtz has never proved them to be close political allies, and that indeed Ayers has confirmed that point with his Good Morning America interview.

Actually, no. You (and the pro-Obama side of this debate) were mischaracterizing the critque of Obama as guilt by association.

In fact, I already commented on this in post #35 of that thread:

You are also missing a big point in citing specifically Sowell and Kurtz as sources...
They are right wing sources and the arguement they are making is specifically not a guilt by association arguement. There are two direct source that prove that the arguement is not a guilt by association argument. You can argue weather the arguement is strong or not, but to try and claim that it is a guilt by association arguement when it is specifically and demonstratably shown to not be is exceedingly dishonest, and an obvious attempt to make their arguements fit into the template that is the strawman mischaracterization put out by the Obama campaign and echoed by the MSM.
​

The argument being made by the right on this has never been a 'guilt by association' argument. You can look at the specific arguments they make and demonstrate that. The only "proof" you can cite that it is a 'guilt by association' argument is from secondary sources; namely, the MSM. Sorry, but they don't get to determine what the conservative argument is (even though they think they can). If there is a difference between the argument being made and the reporting of the argument, then it is a blatant strawman mischaracterization.

Why don't you go back and re-read the thead.

You were the one that moved the goalposts to this 'reflection of character' point, I was arguing that the goalposts should remain at 'guilt by association' since it has never been proven that the two men had any sort of close political ties, I stand by that conclusion, the men have never been shown to have close political ties.

• Obama chaired a board that was specifically pushing Ayers radical agenda, with strong influence from Ayers
• Obama launched his political career out of Ayers house, and Ayers donated to his campaign
• Obama and Ayers were both part of a panel put together by Obama's wife

If you take any one of these facts separately, then you might have an argument. But to take them separately would be exceedingly dishonest and a blatant attempt to distort. Taken as a whole, those facts constitute a strong perponderance of evidence which is more then enough for any reasonable and objective person in voting for Obama.

But, since you blindly follow Kurtz, won't let go of op ed source (that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in a debate - to allow op ed, you would be all over me shag if I tried to insert op ed into any argument, and rightfully so)

Actually, I could care less if you did that. As I have explained before, what matters is the argument being made and the credibility of the person writing it.

Odd that Sarah Palin can 'pal' around with Secessionists, McCain can 'pal' around with a completely different brand of domestic terrorist (G Gordon Liddy) and they never were questioned (by me at the very least) to whether they were creating some sort of 'political alliance'.

Should we delve into those relationships Shag?

Feel free...they are all lies and hyperbole, and you know it.

The Palin/secessionist thing has been proven false.

And...Liddy a terrorist?! That is patently absurd. A convicted felon, yes, but to say he is a terrorist is an absurd exageration and distortion.

Now you are getting so desparate that you are spreading smears and lies about people?!

Besides, none of this says anything about Obama's ties, nor is it comparable. Both are a false analogy to the Obama/Ayers relationship for different reasons.

 

[ford nut]

So, you just don't think that's a big deal?
You don't think their association is important?

Do you not care that Obama and he APPEAR to share political philosophy, or do you think they really have nothing in common, other than geography? Or- do you think it's good that they are working together for the same common goal?

It dosen't matter what I think.
The people already have decided that it means nothing.

If there was anything to it Clinton would have pushed harder on it.
McCain bringing it up in the last debate hurt him....it didn't help him.
It didn't give McCain any traction.

Its over... to keep going over it will gain nothing.

Are you saying Ayers will end up in Obamas cabinet ?
There "friends" right?
After all thats were Obama started his whole storied climb to power !
He must have a spot they are such close allies

 

[hrmwrm]

"In the video shown above Palin says she is "delighted" to be addressing the group, that the party "plays an important role," and wishes them "good luck on a successful and inspiring convention."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/palin-partys-founder-ive_b_123193.html

i wouldn't say she exactly denounces them either.
and obama was never a part of ayers anti american groups.

and a little bit about liddy

"The Chicago Tribune has reported that McCain held a fundraiser at the home of G. Gordon Liddy in 1998. Last November, McCain appeared on Liddy’s radio program. Liddy referred to McCain as “an old friend.” Liddy has contributed four times to McCain’s campaigns, including this one.

Liddy is a planner of the Watergate break-in that cost Richard Nixon his Presidency. He was a member of the White House Plumbers who operated for Nixon to find the sources of damaging information leaks to the press (McCain sure likes plumbers, doesn’t he?). Liddy tried to explain the Watergate break-in as a cover-up to hide a call girl ring that he claimed the Democratic National Committee headquarters was running.

As a youth, Liddy listened to Hitler’s speeches and recounted that they “made me feel a strength inside I had never known before.” Liddy did eventually condemn Hitler as “evil.”

Liddy became one of the primary dirty tricks henchmen of Nixon’s Committee to Re-election the President, also known by its aptly named acronym (CREEP).

His never completed plans included the firebombing of the Brookings institute, kidnapping anti-war activists and transporting them to Mexico and arranging call girls to catch Democrats in compromising situations.
With a quarter of a million dollar budget from the Nixon campaign, Liddy did orchestrate numerous dirty tricks. These included spreading salacious sex and drug gossip about George McGovern. He doctored political literature about the Democratic Presidential candidates of 1992, making it appear that each of them accused the other of fathering illegitimate children or being homosexuals. One of his documents accused Vice-President Hubert Humphrey of being caught drunk in a car with a prostitute in 1967."

if he was a democrat, i'm sure you'd call him a terrorist.

but the obama/ayers thing doesn't matter, cause as it was brought out, america didn't seem to give a sh1t anyways. he still won.

 

[fossten]

Are you saying Ayers will end up in Obamas cabinet ?
There "friends" right?
After all thats were Obama started his whole storied climb to power !
He must have a spot they are such close allies

That's what I'M saying. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.