Going into the debate expectations for Paylin were so low thatit is is no wonder she essceeded then. All she had to do was saty on her feet and no collappse. he mananged that smiling coily, wringing her hand andgiving several answer tht ha d nothing to dwith the questions. Meanwhile JoBiden gave informed answere from his vaste store of foreign affais.
Sadly mcCain’s people neeeed a lotle more from Palin thn she delivered.. He’s hst hd to pull out of Michiagan, the trnd is toward obama in half adozen crucial states.
A couple of weeks agao McCaid sais Palylin has trown th race upsede downl Sh has indeedand McCain is on the bottom.
Goodness gracious, Neil, it’s not even noon yet LoL
Neil forgot to turn on both his spellcheck and his grammarcheck.
You feeling okay, Neil? That was very unlike you…
Yes indeed, I join the others in being worried. I guess I got the meaning…but I am not sure. I hope it is just a microsoft word quirk.
Maybe it’s a lack of practice typing on a blackberry?
Either way – I was disappointed. I really wanted Palin to crash and burn – and she didn’t.
The polls seem to indicate Biden won, but Palin did better than expected. I blame Katie Couric – her interview resulted in such LOW expectations for Palin that it was near impossible for her NOT to impress!
Joe, I hope you are right about the Blackberry. The post begins all right…and then it blurrs. Pray that our friend did not have a stroke while posting.
Hi, I spoke to Neil on the telephone at around 5pm., He is suffering from a cold and a fever. Otherwise he said he was OK. He said he would let us know this on the blog.
I waited a half hour, but maybe he was to tired to write.
Well that is sort of a good news. Thanks Peter.
Neil,
What on earth are you watching?
While both were skillful, Palin had Biden skating. She controlled the debate.
Give her some credit. She was strong, succinct and forced Biden into making curt statements. Notice how she handled the redefining the family question. It was so honest that it forced the moderator to caution Biden to match her and tell the people how he really felt about it. That was a remarkable moment as Biden said both he and Obama aren’t for redefining marriage but both (Biden and Palin) support civil unions.
She wiped him with her “small government” spiel, was solid on energy and showed she understands economics.
Even Biden looked surprised. It took him until the second leg to get on track.
But factually is another matter for both:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
Most interesting reference, Expo. Thank you.
As of 11am this morn Neil was attended to by a Rent-a-Nurse. His doctor is away. Nurse quite competant. No bad readings . A-okay for now.
I didn’t hear a debate. Palaver Palin said that she wasn’t about to answer questions and that she was going to address the nation directly,
which she did. In doing so she got the new commanding general in Iraq’s name wrong amongst many other misquotes. I suppose John the drool was happy with her “goshes” and “geewizzes” and other apple-pan-dowty colloquialisms. On making her appearance on stage she asked Biden if she could call him Joe. Was this an indication that she didn’t know his name? The librarian “look” about her makes her look very sexy. Oh Sarah honey, if you take me home with you tonight I promise to make breakfast for you in the morning. Oops!
Nice to have health bulletins. Thank you Jim. I, once in a while, meet Neil at McGill’s Institute for Learning in Retirement, so he is sort of an acquaintance.
Good morrow, all!
Sarah Palin was too busy, mugging at the camera with the kind of “come hither” looks one usually finds in singles bars, to answer the questions presented to her. “Let Sarah be Sarah.” (stealing from “The West Wing,” are we, Republican’t speechifyers?) “I’m going to talk right to the people, coz, by golly, gee willickers, and, oh, yeah, gosh darn it, I’m a hockey Mom and a Joe Six-pack kind of gal that this country needs right now!”
Last time I heard such profound concern for answering questions, it was from some kid in overalls playing “Duelling Banjos” on a back porch in Alabama.
That was no debate. That was Gentleman Joe trying to get a word in edgewise, while Hockey MILF demonstrated how we could tell that she hailed from the crystal meth capital of North America. Some debate.
BTW, Troopergate is set to go public on Oct. 10, 2008. Should be VERY interesting. But…well, you know the rest…CTZen
On another more important topic:
Here’s a very revealing article on Barack’s deep relationship with the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers:
http://tinyurl.com/4tnwlc
.
Obama Hitler Youth sing for Dear Leader:
http://tinyurl.com/4henkb
.
Good morrow, Tony!
You are afraid of Obama, precisely why? He does not threaten to bomb people who offer little or no threat to the US. He does not have lobbyists working for him, who are paid vast sums of money by gigantic bloated corporations, to whisper in his ear and legislate bigger tax cuts and direct government contracts, so they can get even bigger and more bloated, so they can pay lobbyists even more vast sums of money, to whisper in his ear some more, to legislate bigger tax cuts and…
The Republican’ts have been in control of the Legislative branch of government for 12 years. They have been in control of the Executive branch for 8 years. 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the collapse of the foremost Wall Street financial houses, all happened on THEIR watch. If, after 20 years of being in control of the most influential branches of government, they could not get it right, why would ANYONE in their right mind, or anywheres NEAR their right mind, trust them any further? They are either implicit in the mess, due to ignorance, or complicit, due to greed and corruption on their part.
Either way, in the name of The Great Whatever Out There, they have to step aside. The world cannot afford either stupidity or cupidity at the heart of the decision-making apparatus in the Excited States.
Yes, Obama more resembles a janitor than he does the typical rich, white, privileged, aristocratic patricians you seem to prefer. Considering the extent of the mess, maybe a janitor is what the country needs.
White guys don’t jump, don’t dance, won’t ask directions, and refuse to clean up after themselves. It’s time for the janitor to yell, “Everybody! Outa the pool! Geez, what a flaming mess! Where’s my mop?” But…I…digress…CTZen
CTZ, don’t contradict Tony…and he won’t be violent. However I must admit that you are right all the way.
Good morrow, Paul!
Tony? Violent? “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” After all, violence is the first refuge of the incompetent – attribution unknown. Always assume the worst — you will never be disappointed. Either you will be right — or you will be pleasantly surprised. I’m looking forward to being pleasantly surprised. Aren’t we all? CTZ
CTZen: Before I tell you precisely what it is about Obama that frightens me, let me correct you on what you said about Obama and lobbyists:
After Chris Dodd, no other U.S. senator received more lobby money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than did Barack Obama. He had as his advisers at least one of the corrupted CEOs of that firm who had run off with a $75 million payday from their employ at that firm. So it is the exact opposite of what you represented here, CTZen.
As for the 12 years of Republican rule and what they have wrought: please don’t put me in a position of defending them. Just because I am opposed to Obama doesn’t automatically make me a supporter of the Republicans…and this isn’t a Johnny-come-lately position but one I’ve held for years (documentation will be supplied upon request).
I fear Barack Obama because there are many indications that he is even more of a socialist/government interventionist than the Republicans have proven themselves to be. His philosophy is the very kind of thing that got us into this whole mortgage mess and the fact that he was the first one to support Bush in his bailout policy makes Barack — not McCain — at least in this instance makes him more worthy of the title Bush 3 than McCain who although also supports the bailout at least wasn’t as unconditionally enthusiastic as the socialist Barack was.
Barack is an unknown quantity who frightens me. Playing footsie with terrorists and supporters of terrorists is bad enough; having gone to that church for 20 years and sitting at the feet of that racist demagogue frightens me, too.
His philosophy of taxing the rich when the rich already pay many times more in tax than they should frighten me.
Barack is more of the same. He is more Bush than McCain is when we talk of government intervention of the economy.
Wars and bombing? Well, what frightens me there is that Barack is not willing to be tough with the evil people of the world. I think he’ll be another Jimmy Carter in this regard, which led to all kinds of suffering in the world. And despite his recent declarations of support for Israel, I suspect he will abandon them to Iran and the others who want to kill 5 million Israelis.
And don’t get me started on how Barack will enable Iran to get nuclear weapons…
Tony, Obama and Ayers had a “deep” relationship? Like, they’re gay? They double date? They have sleep-overs? What?
“As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, ‘People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.’ The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant?”
Question the first: Who says he wants to be “forgiven?”
Question the second: Who says he needs to be “forgiven?”
Question the third: Will being “forgiven” eradicate his former activities from the memories of anyone?
Look…getting through life is a series of chained events, each following another and sometimes coupling with another, and sometimes a whole bunch of events all together. Each subsequent event depends upon past events for its occurence.
In other words, you could not possibly be the man you are now if you had not been the man you were several years ago, and made any mistakes you made, or engaged in any activities — legal or illegal — at that time. So if you “regret” and “need forgiveness for” anything you did back then, you clearly regret and need forgiveness for being the man you are now.
I more understand Ayers’ philosophy than I understand everyone else’s wish to skewer him with it.
And as for Obama’s book “endorsement,” I can only say that I know several writers who have “endorsed” other writers without any of their being BFFs. I have even recommended books to others without agreeing wholesale with everything between the covers. Sometimes it’s just the point that a book of thoughts is a new way of looking at a subject, sparking renewed interest for tired brains, and injecting some fresh ideas for solutions into an old problem.
“Well, what frightens me there is that Barack is not willing to be tough with the evil people of the world. I think he’ll be another Jimmy Carter in this regard, which led to all kinds of suffering in the world.”
Gee, I hate to break this to you, but POTUS is not the parent/watchdog/cop of the entire planet! His job is to administer the workings of the United States, not invade other countries looking for dead dictators and bogus boogiemen! It is not incumbent upon POTUS to relieve suffering around the world. His job is to take care of business in his own country.
“And don’t get me started on how Barack will enable Iran to get nuclear weapons…”
No, don’t do that. Don’t use that device — alarming-sounding but empty of content — to scare people into thinking there actually is such a plot. If you got something, show it.
Sorry, Neil. Looks like your original thread has been hijacked. How you feeling?
Chimera said in reference to William Ayers: “Who says he needs to be ‘forgiven?’ ”
Ayers needs to demostrate that he is a different man than he was when he was blowing things up. He does that first and foremost by, yes, being repentent about the bombs.
He isn’t.
We had the experience in Quebec about 10 years ago in which Chretien announced that he was appointing a fellow (I forget his name) to the position of Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec who, it was revealed in a subsequent media expose, was during WWII sympathetic to the Nazis, something that was not uncommon in Quebec at that time (our dearly departed Pierre Trudeau used to motorcyle around Montreal at that time in a Nazi helmet apparently).
A big uproar followed, the man was replaced in the appointment, and as far as I could tell from media reports, his life pretty much ruined.
Yet it was well documented that after his youthful discretions in the ’40s he had most certainly been repentent and had gone on to lead an exemplary life of tolerance and good works. But this was not good enough for everyone, especially the PQ and the MNA from D’Arcy McGee.
I think he should have been allowed to become LG in light of how he changed. Ayers didn’t and hasn’t. Indeed, from the article I linked to (and as a separate issue from his unrepentent terrorist thinking) he still holds to radical Marxist views, something that, according to the article, Obama subscribes to.
Chimera, you have proudly stated that you understand his philosophy. I can’t say I do if we’re talking about bombing and terrorism. As for the rest of it, I can only rely on what the media says as I have not read his stuff. But if it is classical Marxism and radical Leftism and Obama agrees with it, this relationship is most certainly an important factor to consider when determining whether to vote for this man for president.
As for the Iran/enabling remark, it was meant to be a post-script to the Jimmy Carter comment which it followed. As such, it needed no more documentation…
“Ayers needs to demostrate that he is a different man than he was when he was blowing things up.”
Sez whom? And why? You have already demonstrated that you believe he is now a different man simply by referring to his blowing things up in the past tense.
“Chimera, you have proudly stated that you understand his philosophy.”
No I didn’t. Go back and read it again.
“I can’t say I do if we’re talking about bombing and terrorism.”
I wasn’t talking about either bombing or terrorism. I was talking about his leaving the past in the past and getting on with his life.
I’m on a bit of a time crunch at the moment, but I’ll come back later…
Tony, I’ll say it again.
If Palin and McCain want to engage in a guilt by association battle with Obama, it will be just one more tactical error that will blow up in their face. The fact they can’t see that is further illustration of how poor their judgment is and how desperate their campaign has become.
Tony, the prospective LG you are talking about was Jean-Louis Roux. In the 40s he was studying medecine and he went to a Hallow’een ball wearing a swastika as an arm band over a white frock. A certain Harry Windsor did the same last year. As for his ruined life, after the LG thing he kept on his acting life as a very talented and respected great of the Québec theatrical scene, director of plays and member of many boards. He was made a member of both the Order of Canada and of Québec. I know several people who would like to have such a ruined life.
I respect your thinking but, at times, you sound a bit fanatic.
Neil getting the better of it. Expect he might be ready for the highjacked blogging by tomorrow..
By the way, Buffet on the Charlie Rose show said he pays taxes at the 15% income tax rate and no payroll tax. Others pay same tax plus payroll tax.
On the climb of the politcal ladder Obama has bumped into all kinds of characters. What I like about Obama is that he seems authentic. If guilt by association is the criteria to judge him by, so be it. However, we must also include Jesus, who hung around with prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners. He also condemned hypocrites, simply meaning we should not project our own prejudices onto other people.
I am totally convinced, on the international scale, there is nobody, past present or in the future that will do a better job than Obama. I think in the end that is what is going to matter.
John: this goes way beyond “guilt by association”, as you put it.
His association and friendship with the terrorist Ayers means that Barack Obama himself wouldn’t even be able to pass an FBI security clearance.
This is not someone I want in the White House.
But it is all going beyond that now and is now morphing into the issue of Barack’s credibility. It is becoming clearer that Obama’s campaign lied about the Ayers relationship. See: http://tinyurl.com/3nh6nh
.
Paul: if you are saying I sound a bit “fanatic” because I alluded to Roux’s “ruined life” that is because I am going by Roux’s very own words, as reported in the Gazette at the time. He was in tears when interviewed by the Gazette and was devastated by what was done to him.
If he has recovered since then, I am happy for him.
Jim wrote: “By the way, Buffet on the Charlie Rose show said he pays taxes at the 15% income tax rate and no payroll tax. Others pay same tax plus payroll tax.”
You almost certainly misunderstood what he said because the above sentence alone is a contradiction in terms (I work with taxes in my business).
First, we would have to assume that the second richest man in America only had taxable income of $65,009 (the ceiling of the !5% federal income tax bracket for married people).
Secondly, if he had any income it would be subject to payroll tax. There are people who pay payroll tax and no income tax (if they are poor enough) but it is impossible to pay income tax and no payroll tax.
What Buffet is referring to (because I’ve heard his rant on this before) is the fact that for the first $97,500 of adjusted gross income in a year, the federal government imposes a FICA — or “payroll” — tax on a taxpayer. This tax is 15.3% of which about 80% constitutes Social Security contribution and about 20% is Medicare contribution. Half of that is paid by the employee and half by the employer.
Let’s say Buffet’s secretary earns $96,000 a year, she will have both FICA and state and federal income taxes imposed upon the last (or marginal) dollar she earns in the year. That’s 15.3% for her FICA contribution plus 25% plus whatever Nebraska marginal income tax is. But Buffet — who most certainly has income in the tens of millions of dollars a year — will be in the highest federal income tax bracket — 35% — but pays no payroll tax at that level of income because it stops once one earns money past $97,500 in a year.
So Buffet is right when he says his total top marginal rate is lower than his secretary’s. But of course he is twisting and manipulating data because those in the know know that payroll tax is contributed to and benefits meted out totally differently than income taxes (the details of which I won’t bore you with).
If you don’t understand the above data, then take my word for it: I’m right and Buffet is wrong.
Sorry, let me amend something I said above: it is possible to pay income tax and no payroll tax if one is not working (not the case with Buffet; he still is) and only receiving income from investments…or…one is over a certain retirement age, which is probably the case with Buffet. But then we’re comparing apples and oranges and it isn’t a fair comparison for him to make in the first place.
Thanks Tony, I read the article.
Even if the accusations in the article were concrete (and they’re not), at best they would tie Obama to Ayers in a very nebulous fashion (job recommendation for a position unconnected in any way to Ayer’s political beliefs past or present). Compare that, on the other hand, to McCain’s connection to Charles Keating where McCain’s problem isn’t that he knew Keating in activities unconnected to the wrongdoing, but was clearly and directly involved) or Palin’s very vocal expression of “pride” in the work of the Alaskan Independence Party.
A desperate move by McCain and Palin obviously meant to take the attention of the American people from the economy etc.
How gullible do they think folks are?
“His association and friendship with the terrorist Ayers means that Barack Obama himself wouldn’t even be able to pass an FBI security clearance.”
Tony, if that were actually the case (and I’m not saying it’s not), then you have just defeated your own argument.
Obama couldn’t sit in the Senate without having passed FBI scrutiny.
But I think we all get that you don’t like Obama. It’s okay to not like someone. You don’t really need to burn him in effigy (figuratively speaking) to prove how much you don’t like him.
Chimera wrote: “Obama couldn’t sit in the Senate without having passed FBI scrutiny.”
Really? I wasn’t aware of that. I thought because of the separation of powers that the Senate could have their own rules regarding who does and doesn’t sit in their chamber because of ethics violations or other causes.
Could you cite the rule, please?
Just one more little note worth noting…
Ayers was never convicted of any crimes. He didn’t even go to trial. All outstanding charges against him were dropped in 1980.
Tony, it has nothing to do with Senate “rules” (and I wasn’t aware that they could make their own). It has to do with security — which you brought up on your own .
If the FBI thought that Obama had terrorist capabilities/ties, he wouldn’t be aloowed to go anywhere near government buildings.
Obama would not even be allowed on a plane…but that would not slow our friend Tony.
Neil, this is Tuesday and I hope that you are feeling better. As long as I see ablog every day I know you are ok. So, I am waiting!!
Chimera wrote: “Ayers was never convicted of any crimes. He didn’t even go to trial. All outstanding charges against him were dropped in 1980.”
That’s because he got off on a technicality (illegal wiretapping). He’s already admitted he did it, he’s proud of it, has said that he didn’t do enough bombing, and is not repentent. That he wasn’t convicted is not the point.
Paul wrote: “Obama would not even be allowed on a plane…but that would not slow our friend Tony.”
If you’ll recall, Pierre Trudeau was on the “do not all in” list for the United States because of his communist ties. Needless to say, being elected Prime Minister of Canada got him off that list.
The fact that Obama would not pass the FBI security clearance obviously doesn’t get him banned from the Senate…but it should.
Tony, as Neil once told you, you are still in the McCarty era. Were I a Buddhist that I would believe that you are his reincarnation.
“That’s because he got off on a technicality…”
No, Tony. He didn’t “get off.” He was never “on.”
Stoopid tags…
“That’s because he got off on a technicality…”
No, Tony. He didn’t “get off.” He was never “on.”
Chimera wrote: “No, Tony. He didn’t ‘get off’ (on a technicality). He was never ‘on.’ ”
Yes, he did get off on a technicality. See the 10th paragraph down:
http://tinyurl.com/4cobjv
Your enthusiastic defense of a self-admitted unrepentent terrorist is curious, Chimera. Whose actions will you be defending next…Charles Manson?
Tony, the issue at hand is not Bill Ayers and what he did or didn’t do, say or didn’t say etc. It’s about the relationship of Barack Obama to Bill Ayers that’s in question and after months of the Clinton folks, the McCain folks and every major newspaper in the country trying to come up with some dirt on that relationship, they have come up empty handed!
They’ve come up with nothing, Tony.
On the other hand…..I’m curious to know what you think would be happening right now if this were about the Obamas rather than the Palins?
“Yes, he did get off on a technicality.”
Tony, please pay attention to wording, willya? “Got off on a technicality” means that he went to trial and the jury acquitted because of improprieties in the prosecution’s case.
Ayers never went to trial.
That’s not “enthusiasm,” as you call it. That’s just being accurate. Something I wish I didn’t always have to make sure of for myself, because I just cannot trust anyone else to do it for me.
I really wish I could trust everyone else to present their side of an issue with the plain, unvarnished TRUTH, without sliding a little something under the carpet here and propping something up a little higher over there.
And to focus on a whole different part of your fears about Obama and his so-called “relationship” with Ayers…just how much of a “relationship” is there in actual FACT? You have never elucidated the breadth and depth of their “relationship.” Could that be because they don’t, in fact, have one?
And when we’re finished dissecting Obama, wanna have a go at the “relationships” of Palin and McCain? Betcha I can find something without having to look too hard…
John says: “It’s about the relationship of Barack Obama to Bill Ayers that’s in question and after months of the Clinton folks, the McCain folks and every major newspaper in the country trying to come up with some dirt on that relationship, they have come up empty handed!”
Well, then, we should a cue from you, John, and look at that relationship…and what is turning up goes to the heart of another important issue as well: the only executive experience that Barack Obama has ever had.
I have been wrong in previous posts whenever I said Obama had zero executive experience. It turns out that he did when he worked on the board of the Annenberg Foundation and he doled out $50-60 million to none other than…Bill Ayers and his school projects! (Doesn’t sound too much like just some guy who lives in his neighbourhood, does it now).
And what were those projects? Well, it will be very interesting to see what Howard Kurtz — who is investigating all this now — will come up with. Indications are that the terrorist Ayers is into radicalizing — no, make that extreme radicalizing — children.
This will be the real scandal because, as you say above, it goes directly to the heart of the relationship between the community organiser and the bomber of the United States government.
As for your comment that after months of trying everyone has come up emptyhanded about the Obama-Ayers relationship, you may be referring to the puff piece the New York Times recently did on this subject in which they pretty much tried to have their readers come to that conclusion.
Well, the NYT is being raked over the coals over that one because their bias towards Obama meant that the piece left a lot out. Take a gander at this:
http://tinyurl.com/4tnwlc
…and this:
http://tinyurl.com/4ke9jn
Thank God for the internet!
John says: “It’s about the relationship of Barack Obama to Bill Ayers that’s in question and after months of the Clinton folks, the McCain folks and every major newspaper in the country trying to come up with some dirt on that relationship, they have come up empty handed!”
Well, then, we should a cue from you, John, and look at that relationship…and what is turning up goes to the heart of another important issue as well: the only executive experience that Barack Obama has ever had.
I have been wrong in previous posts whenever I said Obama had zero executive experience. It turns out that he did when he worked on the board of the Annenberg Foundation and he doled out $50-60 million to none other than…Bill Ayers and his school projects! (Doesn’t sound too much like just some guy who lives in his neighbourhood, does it now).
And what were those projects? Well, it will be very interesting to see what Howard Kurtz — who is investigating all this now — will come up with. Indications are that the terrorist Ayers is into radicalizing — no, make that extreme radicalizing — children.
This will be the real scandal because, as you say above, it goes directly to the heart of the relationship between the community organiser and the bomber of the United States government.
John:
As for your comment that after months of trying everyone has come up emptyhanded about the Obama-Ayers relationship, you may be referring to the puff piece the New York Times recently did on this subject in which they pretty much tried to have their readers come to that conclusion.
Well, the NYT is being raked over the coals over that one because their bias towards Obama meant that the piece left a lot out. Take a gander at this:
http://tinyurl.com/4tnwlc
…and this:
http://tinyurl.com/4ke9jn
Thank God for the internet!
As for your comment that after months of trying everyone has come up emptyhanded about the Obama-Ayers relationship, you may be referring to the puff piece the New York Times recently did on this subject in which they pretty much tried to have their readers come to that conclusion.
Well, the NYT is being raked over the coals over that one because their bias towards Obama meant that the piece left a lot out. Take a gander at this:
tinyurl dot com/4tnwlc
…and this:
tinyurl dot com/4ke9jn
(I’ve made the url’s with “dots” because the website was refusing to publish it otherwise)
“…[Obama] worked on the board of the Annenberg Foundation and he doled out $50-60 million to none other than…Bill Ayers and his school projects!”
Q: So what is this Annenberg Foundation, anyway?
A: It’s a Republican organization, the current chairman and president (and widow of the founder) of which is on record as being a firm supporter of John McCain’s.
So…McCain is a terrorist sympathizer…
This thing looks more and more like a tennis game and I’m rooting for Chimera.
Walter Annenberg was a good friend of Ronald Reagan’s.
The Rockefellers’ various foundations were all started with the money left by one of the most successful capitalists of all time (and hardly a socialist), John D. Rockefeller.
Ditto the Ford Foundation.
Yet all of the above, to one degree or another, have become tools for philosophies other than what the founders provided for them…after all, the founders have died.
As for what the terrorist did with the money his friend, the community organiser, gave him, well, we shall be seeing that in the coming days hopefully.
Thanks for the articles, Tony. I read them both.
They go to great lengths to try and establish a relationship of sorts (business? friendship? political?) between Obama and Ayers, but with limited success, and I have to ask myself for what purpose.
Unless it can be demonstrated that Obama’s political beliefs are such that he’s an enemy who wants to blow up buildings, do people harm etc. what does it matter who he knew or who he worked with?
John:
What should concern you, I suggest, is:
1) it is now clear that Obama lied about his relationship with Ayers. He isn’t just “some guy who lives in my neighbourhood.” Obama needs to come clean on this.
2) We need to see the type of programs the $50-60 million funded, which Obama was responsible for approving. Is it as radical as the articles suggest? And if so, why did Obama support them? This is, for me, more serious than his palling around with the terrorist himself.
Tony:
1. What if there is nothing to come clean on?
What if there is nothing more? Nothing more than the writers of those articles could find. Nothing more than the newspapers could find (the NYT is the only one looking) or Fox news or any of the conservative media could find. Nothing more than Hillary Clinton and John McCain and all their money and operatives could find. Nothing more than what is public knowledge.
2. Again the expenditure of the $50-60 million is a matter of public record. What are we waiting to learn here…..that the money was secretly used to “radicalize” young children? Really. How stupid do we think parents are that this could go on under their noses and they give the guy doing it an award instead of running him out of town.
Sounds to me like another “teaching sex to kindegartners” attempt to alarm people.
Tony, Ayers got that grant thirteen years ago. While he was working for Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley (another terrorist sympathizer?). If you’ve been holding your breath waiting to see what he did with that money, I’d say you can let it out, now, and breathe again.
And all the stuff I’ve been able to dig up to date says that Obama and Ayers met about six times (maybe five, maybe seven). Even a desperate man can’t really call that “palling around.” McCain is beyond desperate, though.
Someone on another blog mentioned Ayers’ $200.00 contribution to Obama’s campaign ‘way back when, as if that was supposed to make them BFFs or something. But there’s two things I got to say to that:
One, a $200.00 donation for a political campaign (it was in 2001) won’t even get anyone on a regular mailing list.
And two, Sarah Palin is reaping the benefit of a charitable donation I made in her name in order to get her name on that charity’s (Planned Parenthood) mailing list. And I’ve never even met her. See how it can work?
John writes:
“What if there is nothing more? Nothing more than the writers of those articles could find. Nothing more than the newspapers could find (the NYT is the only one looking) or Fox news or any of the conservative media could find. Nothing more than Hillary Clinton and John McCain and all their money and operatives could find. Nothing more than what is public knowledge.”
Did you not read the articles I linked to?
The New York Times did a totally botched job; they left out very pertinent information…apparently on purpose because they are in the Obama camp. Howard Kurtz and that other writer exposed their many mistakes. They documented the mistakes. Even CNN has now come out and said that Obama has lied about the relationship. See: http://tinyurl.com/3mr93p
Do you think that CNN is a fringe news organisation?
John then went on to write: ” the expenditure of the $50-60 million is a matter of public record.”
But that’s the whole point: Obama’s operatives until very recently denied access to those records so they were not a matter of public record. Again, haven’t you read the articles I linked to? They have only recently released them (there are boxes and boxes of them) and people like Kurtz have just started to go through them.
Even if it turns out that the terrorist Ayers’ programs are sweet, gentle programs that lift up and inspire the little hearts of the children, we now know that Obama has clearly lied about his relationship with Ayers and that in itself is a story…and should be a concern to you.
Why did Obama lie?
Isn’t he supposed to be change we can believe in and the end to business as usual?
Chimera writes:
“Ayers got that grant thirteen years ago. While he was working for Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley (another terrorist sympathizer?). ”
Just because one idiot Chicago hack politician had a relationship with an unrepentent self-admitted terrorist doesn’t justify Obama having one.
Obama is supposed to be different than everyone else, remember? If Obama is just going to follow the crowd and do things because of peer group pressure, why the hell do we need him?
Leaders don’t follow; they think for themselves.
I did read the articles, Tony, and I must confess, I’m still confused.
By establishing a rather short-lived and tenuous relationship between Ayers and Obama and poring through these grant records, what are folks trying to prove? That Obama’s a liar? That he’s a radical? That he wants to harm young children? That he wants to blow up schools? What?
John, that,s just fear mongering. When you have no sound arguments, frighten people. It’s “le Nozze di Figaro’s” famous Calumny aria played in fear major, nothing else.
John:
Yes, you are confused, just as you admit:
1) contrary to what you keep repeating, it is now established that despite Obama’s attempts to portray the relationship differently than the reality that it was neither tenuous nor short-lived.
2) that Obama has lied about this has now clearly been established; even CNN has suggested this.
3) that Obama is a radical is what the investigating journalists are trying to figure out. You see, John, Obama hasn’t done anything of significance during the public-service portion of his life and they are trying to grasp on to something — anything! — to figure out where the guy is coming from! At least in this instance, we have a record of Obama being responsible for doling out $50-60 million. Wow! Something to actually examine that he’s done! So Kurtz et al. are taking a look at it. And it’s not looking pretty for Obama.
4) whether young children have been harmed by the indoctrination that Ayers may have foisted upon them through his programs is most certainly something that should be looked at…and since Obama’s operatives can no longer continue to block access to the Annenberg records, perhaps we can now find that out through the on-going investigation that Kurtz and others are currently doing. One thing that has come up is that some of the money Obama okayed and released has gone to a very disreputable radical organisation known as ACORN which has, on numerous occasions, been involved in voter fraud. Just the other day, they were indicted in, I think, Nevada for voter fraud.
5) no, John, Barack doesn’t want “to blow up schools.” But Ayers might.
“that Obama is a radical is what the investigating journalists are trying to figure out”
well in that case i hope all the time, effort and money being put into this pays off and the folks trying to figure that out are able to do so.
Too bad the McCain folks didn’t get on it a bit sooner. They must have figured it didn’t really matter. Wonder what changed? The polls…you say?
Good morrow, Tony!
“…Obama is a radical…” The Greatest Radical Of All Time, That One Who Was Hung On A Cross, said, “Don’t get your knickers in a knot over the mote in your brother’s eye, until you deal with the plank in your own.”
If Obama is a radical, then he is in excellent company with:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and all the radicals that signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Bill of Rights.
Abraham Lincoln, (the uppity radical bumpkin!) who signed the Emanicipation Proclamation, and outlawed slavery in the US, some number of years after the “conservative” British Empire had it outlawed throughtout their world. (still seething over those uppity jigs, my man?)
Winston Churchill, who weathered time, tide and public opinion, who offered nothing but “blood, tears, toil and sweat,” (talk about radical!) and led his people through The Blitz, the threat of invasion and the dark years that followed.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (oh, no! a rich, Irish, Catholic radical!) who intoned, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!”
All those anarchistic, foaming-at-the-mouth, socially-destructive, card-carrying, bomb-throwing, burn-baby-burn radicals! Oh…wait…they aren’t radicals at all…at least…not any more…just…back then…when they dared to question the status quo…yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket…but…I…digress…which, you must admit, is quite a radical thing to do…CTZen
I would add Tommy Douglas, Nelson Mandela, Jean Lesage, René Lévesque, Jean Drapeau, Lester Bowles Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Juan Carlos…and, in his very own particular way, Tony Kondaksakis.
I don’t mean to sidetrack things, but did anyone catch the Larry King interview with Michelle Obama. Wow! Impressive!
We’re talking one cool lady here (with her head screwed on right to boot). Her comments about Sarah Palin, Cindy McCain and Hillary Clinton simply oozed class. Her understanding of the political process, the status of women, and what she would like to accomplish was bang on.
I’ve now decided the single most important reason for anyone to vote for Barack Obama is so Michelle Obama can be the first lady.
Nice twist John. I’m sorry I missed it.
“One thing that has come up is that some of the money Obama okayed and released has gone to a very disreputable radical organisation known as ACORN which has, on numerous occasions, been involved in voter fraud. Just the other day, they were indicted in, I think, Nevada for voter fraud.”
Disreputable? Radical? Hold it right there, bub.
I’m a member of ACORN.
You accusing me of fraud?
From what I have read I gather that ACORN itself turned in a volunteer suspected of doing a bad registration job in Vegas. That does not make the whole operation fraudulous. I also understand that they have very strict quality controls. Tony, once more, your McCartyism is showing it’s petticoat.
By the way Tony, you recently were in Vegas, if you went near ACORN’s office, perhaps you could be suspected yourself. (Ha!Ha!)
Paul, that’s “McCarthyism”, not “McCartyism”.
Here’s an amusing little clip to keep you boys out of trouble for awhile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w
.
Tony, Tony, Goebels and Goëring had already thought of that in 1939 and before.
I forgot the “h” I admit, will the Homeland Security go after me?
Tony, I stopped listening in the first few seconds, right after the narrator said “domestic terrorist.”
Find something with unguilded facts, not hyperbole and wishful thinking.
By what right does anyone sling the epithet “domestic terrorist” at someone who has never been convicted of a crime?
Dear Chimera, by the right of the extreme right religious minority. Our friend Tony seems to belong to them, at least ideologically.
Goebels and Goering used fear, violence, and intimidation to further their political agendas.
So did William Ayers.
Your man simply wasn’t vetted properly…but now you’re stuck with him.
We’ll see how it plays out on November 4th.
Now it’s all about the lies:
http://tinyurl.com/52fgeh
.
Hey, Tony…don’t vote for Obama if he scares you. Or even if he just won’t do what you want and ban abortion, forcing women to become slaves to their masters’ will once again. That’s your privilege and your right.
But trying to justify spreading your fear to others by repeating smears that are so far away from the truth that the truth couldn’t hit them with a shrapnel bomb, that’s just dumb. And dishonest.
Our disagreements aside, I thought you were better than that.
ah Tony, Tony, Tony, as Chimera says, do what you will, but don’t expect the rest us to see the molehill as a mountain no matter how high you and the other folks pile it on. The American people aren’t buying it either. Today’s polls (incl. FOX news) can find no appreciable gain for McCain as a result of the Ayers ads. In fact they find the opposite.
If McCain and his cronies continue to hammer this stuff with little or no results, you have to ask yourself what their motives are in doing so and, to be frank, the answer to that question scares the sh!t out of me.
We all know what can happen when you go into the third period with one team having a large lead. Cooler heads need to prevail….but I worry. Now they’re trying to draw Michelle Obama into the fray. What an assinine move! The first dude’s relationship to the AIP and Troopergate will overshadow any of Michelle Obama’s connections.
McCain is at a crossroads….and the future of the Republican party may hang in the balance.
Update: seems McCain made his intentions known at a rally in Minnesota today.
“We have to fight and I will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful.”
He also told people they needn’t be afraid him.
A little while later at the same rally, McCain snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman who began her question with, “I’m scared of Barack Obama… he’s an Arab terrorist…”
“No, no ma’am,” he interrupted. “He’s a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements.”
Well done, Senator……..
I hope Tony is aware of that, unless he now thinks that McCain has become a fellow traveler.
So St Sarah has abused her power as governor…but broke no law, says the inquiry panel into her police chief sacking. Nice!
Good morrow, all!
Troopergate: I’m not at all surprised that Moose-olini would abuse her position and its privileges to carry out a personal vendetta. You betcha!
If she and her family felt personally threatened by Trooper Wooten, why did she not call the police? “Operator! What’s the number for 911?”
Gosh darn it! She fired her police chief for cause…’cause he stood up to her, and told her she was out of line, gee willickers! The nerve of the man! Who does he think he is, a special prosecutor in Watergate?
Hockey MILF pulls a hissy fit, and Crab Daddy pulls some strings that aren’t fishing lines, and somebody outs them. Cry me a river, Republican’ts. Free ride’s over, it’s time to get off the merry go round and join the real world, by golly! BTW, look the word up…it’s “D” as in Democrat…”I” as in “I am the new energy”…”G” as in “Gee willickers!”…CTZen
Hi Neil, hope your are well and the stock market is not getting you down. In order for the stock market to return to its former glory the same mistakes would have to be made.
Because this is a global crisis, countries will have to apply democratic socialist policies of regulation that will put the brakes on the “laissez faire capitalism” which has caused the equity of all our institutions to disappear.
I am hopefull that the green evolution that Obama proposes will not only provide a million new jobs in ten years it will hasten europe and asia to follow suit in its approach. This will invade our consciousness
into solving this monetary crisis with the regulations needed.
In a green revolution, which is “radical” because it captures the endless energy of the sun in a sustainable way that produces jobs and wealth for the whole human family.
We would be cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the prayer that states that we are to “Renew the face of the Earth” The effort of all nations will in time, reveal the truth of this prayer.