Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Sarah Palin for VP!

You know I was going to respond here... but I'm backing out now.

It is obvious as I said before nothing is going to change your mind. You are going to read that quote the way you want to and I'll read it mine.

*steps out of thread*

Jojo,

I respect your decision to bow out of the discussion.

For the sake of those who were might be reading along, I will say the following:

Jojo maintains that Ayers is a changed man who regrets his terrorist past and is now atoning for his crimes through community service. I say he is a militant radical who has merely changed tactics while remaining true to his ideological objectives. The media and Obama's campaign say Ayers is a man of no consequence in Obama’s life who happens to live in his neighborhood. I say he is someone who, over the course of a close and ongoing personal and professional relationship spanning more than a decade, has greatly influenced Obama’s thinking, and the way he views America.

This is not a question of “you say tomato and I say tomahto.” It is not a question of “believe whatever you want to believe.”

Clark to Lois: You're an investigative reporter, investigate!

Just a note, since I'm the one who asked for the evidence -- thank you for the link, Jojo. However, I don't see anything in there that even comes close to saying "I'm sorry for what we did. I regret killing people." Saying "Well, the other guy started it" or "Those were desperate times" or "I regret not doing more to stop the war" i.e., killing *more* people, since that seemed to be his main way to protest the Vietnam War, is not at all the same thing.

Thought experiment -- say McCain was acquainted with and spent ten years working with an abortion clinic bomber. One who said he *had* to do it, because he sincerely believed innocent lives were at stake, and he's just sorry he couldn't do more to protect them. One who would wax eloquent about the horrors and holocaust of abortion. Your sentiments about abortion aside, you think anybody's gonna give McCain a pass on that? Just because it's been, like, two decades since the guy blew anything up? What would that association/alliance say about McCain?

I'm just saying.

PJ

Well I suppose at this point all I can say is that McCain's money to hire the same robocall firm that smeared him in 2000 to smear Obama wasn't a total waste. His supporters seem to be buying the connection. The rest of us are tired of hearing it (as seen by McCain's increasing drop in polls as he continues to push the issue).

100,000 who don't think Obama is a terrorist gathered in Missouri (historically a red state) to hear Obama speak last night. The biggest US crowd to hear him speak:



75,000 more gathered that night in Kansas.

We got Colin Powell's endorsement this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/colin.powell/index.html

Newspapers that have always favored Republicans and always endorsed republicans are for first time in 60 years (or ever) endorsing Obama. But I'm sure that it isn't because they've done their research. I'm sure it's just them turning liberal and being one sided.

See you guys at the polls on the 4th.

~Jojo, who has also always voted Republican until this election.

From the transcript of the 1980s documentary No Place to Hide:

Griffin: Larry Grathwohl became a member of the Weather Underground organization as an undercover operative for law enforcement agencies in Cincinnati.

Grathwohl: I asked, "Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they'd have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

Griffin: The Weather Underground Organization officially describes itself as follows: "...a revolutionary organization of communist men and women .... Our goal is the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless state: world communism."

=======

Interview of William Ayers (April 2002): I considered myself partly an anarchist then, and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I’m as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist [...] I know what I think, and I’ve very open about what I think, and nobody here is surprised by what I think.

I have a question, Vicki. I see what you've quoted Ayers as saying, and I'm still not getting into his specific case or the nature of his relationship with Barack Obama as I don't know anything like enough to draw conclusions.

But this looks dangerously like policing what people think. Your country has one of the most entrenched set of legal protections for freedom of speech in the world. It's not as if any of the statements you've quoted from Ayers himself actually advocate anything that's illegal. I don't think that being a Marxist or an anarchist in and of itself is illegal, right? Just like someone openly stating that they're opposed to gay rights or that they believe Creationism (or intelligent design or whatever) should be taught in preference to evolution - or vice versa; they're all just opinions.

I'm honestly not trying to argue with you here; I'm just genuinely interested to know why - in and of itself - that statement from Ayers that you have bolded is something you consider inappropriate, other than the fact that (as is your right) you disagree with his political opinions.


Wendy

I did not make these words bold because I find them inappropriate. I made them bold to give emphasis to the fact that Ayers is very outspoken about his current beliefs - which, in fact, are the same beliefs he has always held. He does not hide them, and those who associate with him are well aware of how he thinks and what his opinions are.

Originally, Obama tried to downplay his relationship with Ayers, calling him "someone who lives in my neighborshood." When it came out that they had served together on the Woods Foundation, Obama had to change his story, and he then admitted Ayers was more than someone who just happened to live in the neighborhood, and that the two had "served on a board together". More facts started to be unearthed. The two served together on not one, but two different boards.

Obama's story changed again. In an interview with Michael Smerconish, on Oct. 9, 2008, Obama related how he worked with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and said, "Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated."

Based on what I know of Ayers, and based on his own description of how open he is regarding his political beliefs, I find it about as hard to believe that Obama assumed Ayers was "rehabilitated" as to believe that Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and didn't hear the racist, hateful comments of his own pastor.

Speaking of Rev. Wright, Ayers and Obama, while on the Woods Foundation, gave money to Rev. Wright's church. Rev. Wright claims the only way to fully understand the theology taught at his church is to read Dr. James Cone's "A Black Theology of Liberation". It turns out Black Liberation Theology has its roots in Marxism. Here is an excerpt: "Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves who are seeking to develop their images of the black Christ" Sounds a lot like something Ayers would say, doesn't it?

I am not in the least advocating policing what people think. As you quite rightly state, people are free to believe anything they want in America. It is not illegal by any means to be a Marxist in America. If we were discussing our neighborhood mailman, or a Hollywood actor, or my husband's barber, I would say they are free to believe what they want to believe and it is absolutely none of my business. But we are discussing a politician, and his political views are of utmost importance, and most certainly are my, and all of America's, business.


Edited to clarify: Obama is the politician, and it is Obama's political views which are of importance. But he doesn't hold those political views in a vacuum. The fact that he attended Rev. Wright's church, that he launched his career from Bill Ayer's living room, that he approved funds for the African village project, that he wrote a blurb for one of Ayers's books giving it a glowing review, the list goes on and on - all of these are very problematic to many Americans.

Obama mentor identified as communist
Frank Marshall Davis 'discussed American imperialism, colonialism, exploitation':

The mysterious "Frank" cited as a friend and adviser by Democratic president contender Barack Obama while he was growing up in Hawaii has been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the old Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA.

----

Another Communist in Obama’s Orb
Meet Michael Klonsky , Obama's "social justice" education expert.

Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.

-----

As I say in my previous post, I have no problem with these men believing what they do. I disagree with them, obviously, but they are free to have their own beliefs. My problem is that these are the men Obama has chosen for his inner circle.

Wendy, quoting someone is the same as thought police? Nobody's saying Ayers ought to be arrested (he should have been, decades ago, for crimes committed back then, but that's water under the bridge). That's nowhere near the point. The point is, examining a man's allies will tell you something about him, and when a man's got lots and lots of repulsive allies, you gotta start wondering what all he agrees with them on. That's a legitimate area of inquiry.

And if Barack Obama is telling the truth that he didn't know what Ayers was all about, then obviously the man's too stupid to be president.

PJ

What I was actually trying to find out was why Vicki quoted Ayers: what specific point she was trying to make with the bolded remarks. Earlier, all references were to Ayers as an unrepentant terrorist, but the specific remarks only referred to his beliefs, not any planned or wished-for or unrepented actions.

Anyway, Vicki answered my question, and in the spirit I asked it, too. Sorry I didn't post again at the time, Vicki, but our internet was down all yesterday evening. I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to agree on this - personally, I see Marxism (as long as it's not tied with any kind of violent behaviour) as being as valid as any other political philosophy. Maybe as a result of working for too many years with people so fixed in their own perspective (one which, admittedly, I shared) that they automatically rejected any divergent view as 'wrong' and not worth listening to, but I see willingness to listen to other perspectives - particularly ones you disagree with - as a positive, not a negative Even if you still end up with the same beliefs you started with, it's generally on the basis of a better understanding of the opposing point of view.

(Not, of course, that I'm arguing that this is why Obama may speak to Ayers and others of similar views - I have no idea and am not speculating).


Wendy

Just one thought...

When I think 'socialist', I think Tommy Douglas, not Stalin. But, hey, I'm a Canadian so what can you expect .

ML

Well, Stalin was a Stalinist One of a kind, I think, and a good thing too. (And I made the point earlier on the thread that socialism isn't by any means the same as Marxism).


Wendy

But then, when I think 'Christian Politician', I also think... Tommy Douglas.

ML

Below is a link to an article called The
Comprehensive Arguement Against Barack Omama.
I wish some of you who think he is so wonderful
would read it with an open mind.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

For those who question my concern over self-proclaimed anarchist/Marxist William Ayers and his radical version of "education reform", listen to Yuri Bezmenov , former KGB agent and expert on psychological warfare, discuss the results of what Bezmenov calls “pumping Marxist-Leninist theology into the soft heads of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of American patriotism”: “They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimulate in a certain way, in a certain fashion. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black. You still cannot change the basic perception and the logical behavior.” According to Bezmenov, you end up with someone who “is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic truth, with documents.”

I maintain that what Ayers calls “education reform”, Bezmenov says the KGB calls “ideological subversion” or “active measures”: “What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their family, their community, and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it is divided into four basic stages – the first one being demoralization. It takes between 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why this many years? Because this is minimum number of years which it takes to educate one generation in the country of your enemy. [...] The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already. [...] Most of it is done by Americans to Americans.”

Patti: I read the page you linked to. If that's all they can come up with as reasons not to vote for Obama - perpetuating the same tired old stuff that's been hashed around by the McCain campaign for months and which many undecided voters have said they're fed up with hearing - it's pretty unimpressive on their part. I see circumstantial evidence and selective interpretations - and anyone can selectively interpret things like voting records. John McCain defends his voting record against certain legislation because of riders that were attached, and I've heard Obama say the same thing.

Overall, they seem to say don't vote for him because he's not a conservative... well, millions of Americans don't want to vote for a conservative, so that's not really a disqualification unless you do want a conservative in government - which I understand that you do, and that's your right, just as it's other people's right to want something different.


Wendy

Have you all heard the news that just came out about Obama being buddies with Rashid Khalidi?
He is with the Palestinian Hamas terrorist
organization. Yet another terrorist he is linked
with. Wake up people! You actually want this person to be President? I am just so appalled.
Patti

Yeah, Wendy, but I think the point is, a lot of people just don't know this stuff about him, since the mainstream media has pretty much refused to investigate and report any of this. (If an anchor with a Florida TV news show asks Joe Biden semi-tough questions, she's investigated, her husband is investigated, and we all know if he has unpaid parking tickets. But a Presidential candidate who disapproves of the Constitution? Hey, that's just not important. Nothing to see here. :rolleyes: )

Free choice is vital to democracy, but it ought to be an informed choice. In fact, without all the information being reported, you can't even really have a free choice.

PJ

Actually, I've seen plenty about Ayers, Acorn, Jeremiah what's-his-name and so on in mainstream media. As for that journalist in Florida, I don't know who's digging into her private life and that seems wrong to me, but the Democrats criticising her for her question isn't all that different from the way Palin kept slamming Katie Couric for what was, IMO, a perfectly reasonable set of interview questions.

In Biden's place, I would have wondered if the journalist was joking too. All those accusations based on Obama's comment about spreading the wealth is one thing (and ALL taxes are redistributive, after all, as is just about all government spending), but a Marxist? Since when has Obama even hinted at opposition to private enterprise? Has he so much as suggested public control of private corporations? Of course he hasn't. As I commented earlier, there's a huge difference between socialism and Marxism, and Obama's not even a socialist. If he were, he'd be advocating for workers' rights and huge extensions of labour laws to protect employees, representation of employees on boards of directors and many more things, including a steep increase in the minimum wage.

As for the Rashid Khalidi accusation Patty mentions, I'm waiting for that to appear on Factcheck, though CNN's own factcheck is calling it misleading at best - they say Obama has always made clear that he disagrees with Khalidi on Palestine. But that's CNN, and we'll see what Factcheck says.

This is one thing I loathe about modern-day politics; accusations which may be completely untrue - such as Obama not being born in the US, or Palin cutting spending on special needs - or which are at best misleading make their way around blogs and gossip sites as fast as a virus, and they're impossible to kill completely. There are plenty of voters out there who still believe some of these inaccurate or misleading rumours.


Wendy

Just to reiterate my own personal situation: I am not a US citizen, therefore I do not have the privilege of casting a vote for either candidate.

About Khalidi: Based on the statements that he and Obama lived in the same neighborhood and attended some of the same dinner parties, their "friendship" could run the gamut from mere acquaintances to close friends. The spectrum is wide and I haven't seen anything thus far that provides evidence for one particular end of the scale as yet.

But for the sake of your argument, Patti, let's assume for a minute that they're quite close. Just because two people are friends does not automatically mean that they share all of the same personal beliefs.

My best friend and I do not agree politically. We have so many other things in common, but there we disagree. She's still my best friend. I can be best friends with her without believing all the same things that she does.

Patti, for every post you have made in this thread, the suggestion comes across (in my opinion) as though you think Obama supporters are stupid, or idiots, or blind to the truth, or I don't know what. Fine, don't support him, but please remember that others may be as equally "well-informed" as you are, yet feel differently on these issues. The point of view of the "other side" is valid too.

Kathy