Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 206
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    Now who is G. Gordon Liddy - well here are some excerpts from an interesting article that demonstrates that not only is Liddy a terrorist and former Nazi but that McSame is far far closer to Liddy than Obama has ever been to Ayers.
    Yes, let’s evaluate those relationships shall we?

    According to your excerpt:

    “Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.)

    However, the following events actually happened and are known to have Ayers’ involvement:

    • March 6, 1970 – 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered in the 13th Police District of Detroit, Michigan. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.
    • Ayers participated in the “Days of Rage” which resulted in the bombing of a statue as well as costing the state almost $200,000 in damages (by the way, that equates to over $1 million dollars using a CPI calculator and converting to 2007), and leaving one man (Richard Elrod) temporarily paralyzed and permanently disabled.

    Now call me crazy, but plotting and actually carrying out something seem to be two different things. Regardless, neither of the two men are any better because really, plotting could be just as bad (presuming that the actual intent to kill was there—and I think it was) as actually doing it.

    There is a major difference between the two acquaintances:

    Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug . . . and THAT I find scary as hell.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Yes, let’s evaluate those relationships shall we?

    According to your excerpt:

    “Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.)

    However, the following events actually happened and are known to have Ayers’ involvement:
    • March 6, 1970 – 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered in the 13th Police District of Detroit, Michigan. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.
    • Ayers participated in the “Days of Rage” which resulted in the bombing of a statue as well as costing the state almost $200,000 in damages (by the way, that equates to over $1 million dollars using a CPI calculator and converting to 2007), and leaving one man (Richard Elrod) temporarily paralyzed and permanently disabled.
    Now call me crazy, but plotting and actually carrying out something seem to be two different things. Regardless, neither of the two men are any better because really, plotting could be just as bad (presuming that the actual intent to kill was there—and I think it was) as actually doing it.

    There is a major difference between the two acquaintances:

    Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug . . . and THAT I find scary as hell.
    I'm not suggesting in any way what Ayers did was acceptable. I am suggesting that Liddy is just as bad, as you've suggested above.

    I'll also suggest that Obama did not know that a highly educated education reformer was unaware of what Ayers did in his past while serving on the board(s) that both men served on. Naivety? Sure. An act of condoning Ayers behavior? No. Especially since he denounced Ayers past once he knew of it. Even though Obama was 8 YEARS OLD when Ayers did these things.

    Now how old was McCain when Liddy was involved in Watergate? How old was McCain when Liddy went to prison? How old was McCain when Liddy's plans were revealed? Liddy is a radical and at the very least, intended to be a terrorist (assassin if you think that sounds better).

    I think the bottom line in the Keating 5 and Ayers is - they are sooooo yesterday. Nobody cares. People want to know about tomorrow, not yesterday. So unless McCain has photos of an 8-year old Obama making bombs in Ayers apartment - nobody will care and McCain just looks like the desperate old fool that he is.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm not suggesting in any way what Ayers did was acceptable. I am suggesting that Liddy is just as bad, as you've suggested above.

    I'll also suggest that Obama did not know that a highly educated education reformer was unaware of what Ayers did in his past while serving on the board(s) that both men served on. Naivety? Sure. An act of condoning Ayers behavior? No. Especially since he denounced Ayers past once he knew of it. Even though Obama was 8 YEARS OLD when Ayers did these things.

    Now how old was McCain when Liddy was involved in Watergate? How old was McCain when Liddy went to prison? How old was McCain when Liddy's plans were revealed? Liddy is a radical and at the very least, intended to be a terrorist (assassin if you think that sounds better).

    I think the bottom line in the Keating 5 and Ayers is - they are sooooo yesterday. Nobody cares. People want to know about tomorrow, not yesterday. So unless McCain has photos of an 8-year old Obama making bombs in Ayers apartment - nobody will care and McCain just looks like the desperate old fool that he is.
    I agree with you for the most part... except that McCain had direct involvement in the Keating 5 scandal. Big difference... problem is that McCain has NOTHING on Obama since obama is so new to the political scene. McCain resonats better when he hit on his experience instead of bringing up BS....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm not suggesting in any way what Ayers did was acceptable. I am suggesting that Liddy is just as bad, as you've suggested above.

    I'll also suggest that Obama did not know that a highly educated education reformer was unaware of what Ayers did in his past while serving on the board(s) that both men served on. Naivety? Sure. An act of condoning Ayers behavior? No. Especially since he denounced Ayers past once he knew of it. Even though Obama was 8 YEARS OLD when Ayers did these things.

    Now how old was McCain when Liddy was involved in Watergate? How old was McCain when Liddy went to prison? How old was McCain when Liddy's plans were revealed? Liddy is a radical and at the very least, intended to be a terrorist (assassin if you think that sounds better).

    I think the bottom line in the Keating 5 and Ayers is - they are sooooo yesterday. Nobody cares. People want to know about tomorrow, not yesterday. So unless McCain has photos of an 8-year old Obama making bombs in Ayers apartment - nobody will care and McCain just looks like the desperate old fool that he is.
    Hmpf, eight huh?

    Tell me then, how old was Obama on September 11, 2001? By my calculations I put him at 40, which oddly enough is old enough to read the paper--say the New York Times.
    ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

    So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.
    Huh, according to the LA Times,
    "Obama and Ayers met a dozen times as members of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a local grant-making foundation, according to the group’s president. They appeared together to discuss juvenile justice on a 1997 panel sponsored by the University of Chicago, records show. They appeared again in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library."
    An academic panel in 2002? That's after the NYTs article.

    Here's more from the LA Times:
    "Obama joined the board in 1993 and stepped down in 2002, three years after Ayers was appointed, she said. The board met four times a year to discuss policy and new grant proposals, she said."
    Let's see, three years multiplied by four times a year equal . . . 12.

    1993? Why that's the same year this came out in the Seattle Times:
    "On the night of March 6, 1970, a bomb blew up, apparently when Terry Robbins, following instructions in a book, crossed a pair of wires. The blast, which badly shook neighbor Dustin Hoffman, leveled the townhouse and killed three people.

    Rather than face the legal fallout, the Weather Underground members, including Ayers and another friend, Bernardine Dohrn, went underground. Over the next four years, the group took credit for a dozen bombings, including one at the U.S. Capitol, to protest the war."
    NOTE: This piece was written by Jon Anderson of the Chicago Tribune.



    Hell, even Anderson Cooper at CNN was honest about this.


    The bottom line, like I said previously is this:

    "Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug."



    Seriously, go ahead and bury your head in the sand. Play along like Barack was completely innocent and new nothing about this man. But serving together in two organizations, being invited to his home for his "political coming out" and a number of national papers identifying the man says Obama is playing dumb as are his foolish supporters.

    Get back with me when you have equal (or any for that matter) amount of evidence where McCain tried to play dumb with Liddy.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Get back with me when you have equal (or any for that matter) amount of evidence where McCain tried to play dumb with Liddy.
    Problem is your argument is weak, sad, pathetic, and borderline ignorant. I've already posted the fact on the obama issue.... and even your sources paint the same picture... they were on the same board. They were not "friends" or even "pals."

    At least no more than we are. I guess since we post on the same board, then we are somehow "friends" or "pals" according to your understanding of how relationships work.

    Show me a picture of them at the club doing the electric slide and I'll give it to ya. You can't... all you have is this argument... your ligaments must hurt from reaching so f a r .
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Hmpf, eight huh?

    Tell me then, how old was Obama on September 11, 2001? By my calculations I put him at 40, which oddly enough is old enough to read the paper--say the New York Times.

    Huh, according to the LA Times,
    An academic panel in 2002? That's after the NYTs article.

    Here's more from the LA Times:

    Let's see, three years multiplied by four times a year equal . . . 12.

    1993? Why that's the same year this came out in the Seattle Times:


    NOTE: This piece was written by Jon Anderson of the Chicago Tribune.



    Hell, even Anderson Cooper at CNN was honest about this.


    The bottom line, like I said previously is this:

    "Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug."



    Seriously, go ahead and bury your head in the sand. Play along like Barack was completely innocent and new nothing about this man. But serving together in two organizations, being invited to his home for his "political coming out" and a number of national papers identifying the man says Obama is playing dumb as are his foolish supporters.

    Get back with me when you have equal (or any for that matter) amount of evidence where McCain tried to play dumb with Liddy.
    Don't I know you? You're writing style is eerily similar to someone on this forum that was banned. Hmmm....

    In any event, you're stretching and you know it. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was a radical. Obama did not know that Ayers had said what he said in 2001 because he did not know who the guy was. He was a guy in his neighborhood who sat on a board together and held a fundraiser for his political career. Once Obama learned of Ayers past, he said that he detested the action so Ayers in the past. End of story....well unless you want to use it as the latest shiny object to draw attention away from McShame's appalling debate performance and rapid descent in the polls?

    Regarding McCain and Liddy - I've already posted McShame's very recent radio show appearance with Liddy whereby he proceeded to thank Liddy for being the swell guy that he is. A convicted felon. A misguided operative with plans to KILL political opponents. And whether he did his time or not, he still did it! He still planned to kill people. McShame should not even have been on his radio show let alone thanking him for his "conservative-ness".

    But as you like to say...feel free to bury your head in the sand and ignore the obvious hypocrisy in McShame's "associations" vs. Obamas. John Hagee. The Keatings. G. Gordon Liddy. At best McShame is a hypocrite - at worst his judgment is much worse than Obama's when it comes to "associations".
  7. #47  
    Yes, he was 8 years old when the unrepentant terrorist did his thing. However, Obama was not 8 years old when he began his campaign at the unrepentant terrorist's home (Bill Ayers, in case you forget). He was not 8 years old during those times he sat on the same committees. He was not 8 years old when he wrote a little bit in the unrepentant terrorist's book. He was not 8 years old when he was sitting for 20 years in the pew listening to a preacher DAMN this country and accuse it of extreme racism. He was not 8 years old when he said he never heard it...He was not 8 years old when he said the man was not the man he knew...He was not 8 years old when he finally fessed up that he had heard the statements. He was not 8 years old when he got his house. He was not 8 years old when the guy he got the house with was sentenced for doing bad guy things. He was not 8 years old when he said in 2001 that he did not know who the guy was - does not hold water and you know that. I am sure that he detested the action taken by the unrepentant terrorist (Bill Ayers if you forgot), but he still kept the association up. They were still pals, et cetera - watch as it continues to unfold and the press is finally faced to detail it. He was not 8 years old when he supported infanticide. The list really continues. McCain may not be the best with associations, at least though none of his associates killed anyone or bombed anyone and that cannot be said for the associates of Obama.

    Rapid descent in the polls? I read today that for the most part, the differences were not substantial. You can look though.
  8. #48  
    Theog, his argument is far from weak, pathetic and borerline ignorant. Keep watching the Bill Ayers thing and you will see that there is more to it than you are willing to open your eyes to. You really ought to do some reading:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...iref=hpmostpop

    Start from there. The association is not weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Problem is your argument is weak, sad, pathetic, and borderline ignorant. I've already posted the fact on the obama issue.... and even your sources paint the same picture... they were on the same board. They were not "friends" or even "pals."

    At least no more than we are. I guess since we post on the same board, then we are somehow "friends" or "pals" according to your understanding of how relationships work.

    Show me a picture of them at the club doing the electric slide and I'll give it to ya. You can't... all you have is this argument... your ligaments must hurt from reaching so f a r .
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Problem is your argument is weak, sad, pathetic, and borderline ignorant. I've already posted the fact on the obama issue.... and even your sources paint the same picture... they were on the same board. They were not "friends" or even "pals."
    As are your reading skills apparently. The issue I have with Obama on this is the same I did with Rev. Wright, he simply keeps playing stupid as if he was completely unaware of the two men.

    First, he described a man as an uncle, but somehow wasn't familiar with how his uncle believed; now, he pretends to have barely known Ayers.

    Where they pals? The right answer is, "We don't know." You have no more evidence to say they weren't pals than anyone does to say they were. But again, both you and moderateinny seem to be incapable of grasping my point, as opposed to say the various talking points you hear in the media.

    I will quote myself a second time (which means three times being posted) and hopefully this time it will sink in:

    The bottom line, like I said previously is this:

    "Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug."

    BTW, can someone tell me when it was that Obama denounced Ayers? After his official run for President, no? Awful convenient . . .




    As far as knowing me? Well, I have spoken with you in the past . . . though only under this name (which happens to be real).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    As are your reading skills apparently. The issue I have with Obama on this is the same I did with Rev. Wright, he simply keeps playing stupid as if he was completely unaware of the two men.

    First, he described a man as an uncle, but somehow wasn't familiar with how his uncle believed; now, he pretends to have barely known Ayers.

    Where they pals? The right answer is, "We don't know." You have no more evidence to say they weren't pals than anyone does to say they were. But again, both you and moderateinny seem to be incapable of grasping my point, as opposed to say the various talking points you hear in the media.

    I will quote myself a second time (which means three times being posted) and hopefully this time it will sink in:

    The bottom line, like I said previously is this:

    "Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug."

    BTW, can someone tell me when it was that Obama denounced Ayers? After his official run for President, no? Awful convenient . . .


    As far as knowing me? Well, I have spoken with you in the past . . . though only under this name (which happens to be real).
    Obama has addressed the issue - repeatedly. Fact checking cites have addressed the issue - repeatedly. The issue....is not an issue. Unless your candidate happens to be falling very far behind in the race.

    BTW - you obviously don't think much about a Presidential candidate appearing on Liddy's radio show and praising him. I think - and you clearly disagree - that it was very poor judgment. I get that Liddy did his time in prison. I don't get why that matters - the guy was a friggin' psycho plotting to kill people. Is your point of contention that Ayers wasn't convicted and because he didn't do his time, he is still a potentially violent radical? And because Liddy did his time, he is now a rehabilitated felon that once wanted to assassinate political foes? Ahh..the miracle of prison. Who knew?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    As are your reading skills apparently. The issue I have with Obama on this is the same I did with Rev. Wright, he simply keeps playing stupid as if he was completely unaware of the two men.

    First, he described a man as an uncle, but somehow wasn't familiar with how his uncle believed; now, he pretends to have barely known Ayers.

    Where they pals? The right answer is, "We don't know." You have no more evidence to say they weren't pals than anyone does to say they were. But again, both you and moderateinny seem to be incapable of grasping my point, as opposed to say the various talking points you hear in the media.

    I will quote myself a second time (which means three times being posted) and hopefully this time it will sink in:

    The bottom line, like I said previously is this:

    "Liddy served for his crimes and has not publicly stated he wished he would have done more and only one of our candidates is trying to sweep their connection under the rug."

    BTW, can someone tell me when it was that Obama denounced Ayers? After his official run for President, no? Awful convenient . . .




    As far as knowing me? Well, I have spoken with you in the past . . . though only under this name (which happens to be real).
    I understand your point. That is the problem.

    The other problem is your comment makes little to no sense. Like I said, how many people could call you and I pals or friends just because we are on this same board and interact with each other.

    I used to hang out with the District Attorney of Philly many years back (early 90s)... we were not pals or friends, but cordial and "knew" each other.

    Guess it is hard for some to grasp those types of "associations" without assuming there is something more... guess you have to "be there" or at least be willing to admit that what you are saying does not cut it.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12. #52  
    Actually, I don't think either of you get it. For me it’s a matter of how each candidate has handled these alleged improprieties.

    McCain has simply not sought to hide or otherwise distract from who he associates with, be they minor associations or large ones. On the other hand, Obama has and more than once.

    Am I worried about McCain being on Liddy’s show? No, then again, neither was I worried much about Obama being in Rev. Wright’s church.

    Again, as always, Obama dismisses his relationship with someone and people swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    Is the relationship a problem? For me, not really. However, dismissing a fellow as "some guy in the neighborhood" when you were handpicked to work with him for a number of years, had your political coming out party at his home AND when your wife invites him to speak at the University of Chicago (where she held the position of Associate Dean of Student Services & Director of the Community Service Program) juxtapose you is a problem.

    He simply isn't being honest with the people he associates with and that alone is the biggest problem.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Actually, I don't think either of you get it. For me it’s a matter of how each candidate has handled these alleged improprieties.

    McCain has simply not sought to hide or otherwise distract from who he associates with, be they minor associations or large ones. On the other hand, Obama has and more than once.

    Am I worried about McCain being on Liddy’s show? No, then again, neither was I worried much about Obama being in Rev. Wright’s church.

    Again, as always, Obama dismisses his relationship with someone and people swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    Is the relationship a problem? For me, not really. However, dismissing a fellow as "some guy in the neighborhood" when you were handpicked to work with him for a number of years, had your political coming out party at his home AND when your wife invites him to speak at the University of Chicago (where she held the position of Associate Dean of Student Services & Director of the Community Service Program) juxtapose you is a problem.

    He simply isn't being honest with the people he associates with and that alone is the biggest problem.
    You should read this... maybe it will "enlighten" you and show the weakness of your argument.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...all/index.html

    At this point you have dug a hole so darn deep that you can't -- and won't -- get out.

    Good luck...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Actually, I don't think either of you get it.
    Oh I completely get it. McShame is losing the race. Period.
  15. #55  
    Yeah, it may be that way, but you really are aware of a similar situation a few years ago when Bush was loosing the debates and he won. Dang those Republicans. In addition, the polls do not show a significant difference.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    You should read this... maybe it will "enlighten" you and show the weakness of your argument.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...all/index.html

    At this point you have dug a hole so darn deep that you can't -- and won't -- get out.

    Good luck...
    Um, no. Note the following from your article:

    "The McCain camp, along with their right-wing media comrades, want to convince you that Obama should not have decided to serve with Ayers, who was named the Citizen of the Year in Chicago in 1987 for his education work, and who is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

    It's so weird though, because I simply never tried to convince anyone that Obama should have decided to refrain from working with Ayers.

    You really don't get it--even after I've clearly stated it several times over.

    Amazing.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    Oh I completely get it. McShame is losing the race. Period.
    You don't either. This has nothing to do with McCain and where it looks like he sits. I didn't even start this thread--you did. I merely responded to YOUR nonsense and nothing else.

    My point was simple, the criticism you level at McCain is not only ignorant, but some of it untrue (like the Rolling Stone article you never managed to defend, but quietly let go).

    McCain and Obama both are connected to people that are shady at best; however, and for the last time, only one of the two candidates was willing to fully acknowledge said relationship (big or small).

    I'm still waiting for someone to show me where McCain wasn't willing to fully accept the associations he has or has had.





    Both of you really need to learn how to discern the difference between my perspectives and those of the talking heads. The aren't always the same (as in this case) and treating them like so will only make you look foolish.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    McCain and Obama both are connected to people that are shady at best;
    Agreed.

    however, and for the last time, only one of the two candidates was willing to fully acknowledge said relationship (big or small).
    That is your opinion. My opinion is that Obama has addressed the Ayers association - and since there wasn't much of an association at all I think that the matter is closed. But I guess you'd like to continue to spin that he needs to reveal more or that he didn't reveal enough fast enough?

    I'm still waiting for someone to show me where McCain wasn't willing to fully accept the associations he has or has had.
    Well if we can get McShame down off his white horse for a moment, perhaps you can ask him WHY he sought the endorsement of John Hagee http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/ma...l?ref=politics
    and then tried to act as though he was surprised the endorsement came once people (Catholics and Jews) expressed outrage over McCain accepting the endorsement?
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    You really don't get it--even after I've clearly stated it several times over..
    lol... how silly... keep going down that road...

    As I said, I'm done with you.

    You don't have an argument... no one with any sense is following McCain up on this argument.

    You want to talk about associations, what about Vicki Iseman. What do you have to say about McCain and vicki?
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    lol... how silly... keep going down that road...

    As I said, I'm done with you.

    You don't have an argument... no one with any sense is following McCain up on this argument.

    You want to talk about associations, what about Vicki Iseman. What do you have to say about McCain and vicki?
    Please do post more about Vicki and any other associations. I'd like to get this thread back on track.

    Besides - it is clear to me that McShame's lies aren't working anyway. Obama is now at 277 electoral votes if the election were held today http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ama_vs_mccain/

    How low can John go? Well I think we can expect to see much more aggressive lies. The last few days it was subtle hints that..."pssst...hey...did you notice, this guy is a black guy with a middle name of Hussein". Tomorrow maybe they'll just invite the biggots screaming "terrorist" and "kill him" at their rallys up on stage and have them lead a chant so that their supporters can all can sing along "kill him kill him kill him".
  20. #60  
    This will be my last post regarding this matter because both of you seem intent on dragging on the silly straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog
    You want to talk about associations . . .
    NO! Which is what you can't seem to grasp.

    Maybe Hannity is yapping about who Obama associated with, maybe Rush is too (I don't get the opportunity to listen that often); I'm not. My point is that Obama simply has a difficult time in simply saying, "Yes, I associated with that person and here's why it's not an issue." Instead, we get him to tell us that Ayers was "just a fellow in the neighborhood." He did the same with Rev. Wright--which I pointed to a previous post of mine making th same exact complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    That is your opinion. My opinion is that Obama has addressed the Ayers association - and since there wasn't much of an association at all I think that the matter is closed. But I guess you'd like to continue to spin that he needs to reveal more or that he didn't reveal enough fast enough?
    You aren't paying attention either. No one asked for more information or faster revelations. I simply asked for him to quit downplaying his associations.

    Anyone who thinks that the amount of association between Obama and Ayers is properly described as a, "fellow in the neighborhood" has their head in the sand. Again though, it's not so much the association as it is his lack of acknowledging he in fact did associate with Ayers, but also was quite familiar with who he was.

    Both of you seem determined to defend Obama against his association with Ayers--even to when that's not the issue in question. Catch up and quite lagging behind.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions