once again the jokes write themselves...

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  as in you checked google and it didnt come up...aka you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to gaining a security clearance.

I never checked google. I just asked you. And i wasnt "talking about" gaining a security clearance. all i said was i bet Obama will be a big one in two weeks.
 
   i think you were arguing security clearances with other people.
 
   Also, since we're talking clearance. I have Confidential Clearance. so, I do know what that is.  I just have never heard of anything over Top Secret.

[chaz]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  ayers was a domestic terrorist. unless you are a complete kool aid drinker dumbass you know that obama knew this and sat on boards with him and kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying? or was obama just too clueless to know all this?

i don't deny anything ayers has done, but hello, the fact that they were both appointed to the Woods Fund Board hardly demonstrates anything besides...that.  The "event" held at ayers home has been constantly arugued over...may have happened may have not.  It's almost urban legend now i have not seen anyone able to definitively say it happened at all, esp. not the way it's been portrayed.
 
 Clearly these guys traveled in some of the same circles in chicago in the mid 90's that's about all that is clear.
 
 Do you think Obama is a domestic terrorist?  Do you think he is anti-american?

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 
 btw, please let me know when this happens to an obama supporter:
 
 A knife-wielding man robbed a Texas woman and etched a "B" into her face after he saw a John McCain bumper sticker on the woman's car, Pittsburgh police said.

Certainly an awful, awful story.
 
 But Obama supporters have also been attacked, as have other McCain supporters:
 
 http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/10/19/local_news/doc48fa891c6397b889391842.txt
 
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/assaulted-canvasser-speak_b_136261.html
 
 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html
 
 http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/greensboro_reporter_assaulted_at_rally

[manimtired]

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  as in you checked google and it didnt come up...aka you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to gaining a security clearance.

I never checked google. I just asked you. And i wasnt "talking about" gaining a security clearance. all i said was i bet Obama will be a big one in two weeks.
 
   i think you were arguing security clearances with other people.
 
   Also, since we're talking clearance. I have Confidential Clearance. so, I do know what that is.  I just have never heard of anything over Top Secret. [/b]

i think he has no problem rubbing elbows with domestic terrorists which causes me concern...unless, like he said, he had no idea..or he was straight up lying.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by chaz:
  i don't deny anything ayers has done, but hello, the fact that they were both appointed to the Woods Fund Board hardly demonstrates anything besides...that.  The "event" held at ayers home has been constantly arugued over...may have happened may have not.  It's almost urban legend now i have not seen anyone able to definitively say it happened at all, esp. not the way it's been portrayed.
 

this seems pretty definitive.
 
 what is know about the two are these points:
 
 1) obama and ayers were both on the team that received funding for the annenberg challenge- an exercise that was a complete failure, waste of money, and, my own editorial, possible illegal mis-use of funds.
 
 2) shortly after receiving the funds for annenberg, both obama and ayers ended up on the woods fund for several years, including after 2001 and ayers' "i don't regret the bombings" statement.  i might add here that the woods fund, while both obama and ayers were on the board, also gave ACORN several hundred thousands of dollars to do their thing.
 
 3) both obama and ayers were part of a UIC symposium (put together by one michelle obama) on education
 
 4) as linked to above, there was a meeting at ayers' house where then-state sen. alice palmer either did or did not declare obama as heir apparent.  the discrepancy is not whether palmer and obama were at ayers' house, the discrepancy is that palmer does not recall going to ayers' house to declare obama her heir; palmer remembers ayers' saying that obama would be her successor.  after failing in her run for congress that year, palmer then tried to take back her seat, at which point obama and his lawyers engaged in a tried-and-true chicago effort, successfully, to get palmer off the ballot (along with every other candidate for state senate running against him).
 
 those are known and provable facts. . .

[sonickteam2]

so wait, no Ayers is playing dirty politics in Illinois, too?
 
  whats your point here.
 
  seems as though you guys are just trying to find any fishy business you can find...but it doesnt all tie together very well.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by very sonick:
  so wait, no Ayers is playing dirty politics in Illinois, too?
 

i don't think i insinuated that at all. . .i simply stated what people have been asking for- what's the relation between obama and ayers.
 
 the point about all of this is that obama does not have one, solid answer to this (or acorn for that matter). . .he simply obfuscates, gives half-answers, and then changes his statements.  it's very clear that ayers' wasn't simply some guy who lives in his neighborhood. . .he was, in fact, something more.  just like jeremiah wright wasn't simply some pastor in his neighborhood.  just like tony rezko wasn't simply some guy selling property next door to him.  just like acorn wasn't simply some group that he did work for on a lawsuit. . .
 
 at some point, a pattern develops here people. . . .

[sonickteam2]

But it's totally plausible, in fact probable, that while Obama may have a relationship or friendship with Ayers that has nothing to do with terrorism or anything remotely like that.
 
  Yet if Obama was to admit to it, people would get the wrong idea, so he's denying it.
 
  sound about right?

[Sage 703]

Patterns can develop anywhere if you look hard enough for them.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  well in a BI they ask you "have you ever had any relation to persons who have attacked the united states"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about so ill take your word for it...

i'm trying to decide which i think is greater: your ignorance or your deceit.
 
 yes, they ask those questions.  newsflash: answering "yes" doesn't disqualify you from getting clearance.  it means that someone will ask you questions about it during the interview, and will look in to who this these people are and what your relationship with them was.  and what would they find?  someone who was active 35 years ago, never killed anyone, blah blah.  he would have passed.
 
 the questionnaire also asks "have you ever used illegal drugs".  saying yes doesn't disqualify you either.  if it did, W Bush wouldn't have passed either   :roll:  
 
 now you're the one who appears to not know what you're talking about.  shocker.  let me put in terms that you might understand: STFU LOL.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by very sonick:
  But it's totally plausible, in fact probable, that while Obama may have a relationship or friendship with Ayers that has nothing to do with terrorism or anything remotely like that.
 
  Yet if Obama was to admit to it, people would get the wrong idea, so he's denying it.
 
  sound about right?

i certainly would agree, and have in previous discussions about this topic, that obama himself is not a terrorist. . .he should explain it...he has not once fully explained his work or association with bill ayers.  i would expect that if he does, you'd find that their work was on the very fringe of the far left. .you can read one view of the results  here.  
 
 of course, isn't obama a different type of politician...the answer is, of course not.  
 
 my frustration in talking about all of this is that on one hand, people are drawn to him because of his message of hope and change, and "i can bring people together" and "i'm a different type of politician" yet, when things are brought up showing that he is in fact no different than any other politician, it's explained away by, but he's a politician.  
 
 at least be consistent people. . .if you support him because you think he'll bring the troops home, fine, even though he won't; if you support him because you think deregulation caused our current economic crisis, fine, even though it didn't; if you support him because you hate all republicans, fine. . .i don't have a response to that.  simply spouting off hope and change as a reason is complete b/s; he's hoping you won't notice the change, change for the worse.

[Sage 703]

To me, the hope/change argument is best summed up in this statement from Christopher Buckley:
 
 But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics arenâ??t going to get us out of this pit weâ??ve dug for ourselves.
 
  http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/2/
 
 Some other conservatives have said different things - and I think this is the crux of the argument.  To me, the hope/change argument is not about a different type of campaigning, or trying to get elected (and for the record, I think Obama has largely avoided most Rovian campaigning tactics, which involve personal character assassination).  Most of the criticism of the "different kind of politician argument" has been centered around the political game of the campaign.  Governance is not the same.  
 
 I see the hope/change argument as about restoring a sense of pragmatism to government - discussing issues openly and thoughtfully to arrive at the best conclusions, and governing accordingly towards the middle to achieve given results.  I have many reasons for believing Barack Obama will do this as president (his answers on abortion, his reaction to the economic crisis, his coalition of advisers, his broad bipartisan support) - and that is what the change argument is about for me.
 
 I also support him for some of the other reasons you mentioned, and others you didn't mention.  But I think there is room for the hope/change argument if you look at it differently.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   
 
 my frustration in talking about all of this is that on one hand, people are drawn to him because of his message of hope and change, and "i can bring people together" and "i'm a different type of politician" yet, when things are brought up showing that he is in fact no different than any other politician, it's explained away by, but he's a politician.  
 

he's a politician, running against another politician for a political office.
 
   and more people think that Obama the politician is better than McCain the politician.  Its very simple and i think way more people see it that way than you are making it out to be.  
 
    but i guess its no fun when you look at it that way.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 ayers' "i don't regret the bombings" statement.

he said that he regretted not having done enough, and this was taken to mean bombings.  ayers has denounced terrorism.
 
 

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion.
 
 In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as "... inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade." Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.
 (...)
 In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism â?? individual, group and official".
 (...)
 "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

[manimtired]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  well in a BI they ask you "have you ever had any relation to persons who have attacked the united states"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about so ill take your word for it...

i'm trying to decide which i think is greater: your ignorance or your deceit.
 
 yes, they ask those questions.  newsflash: answering "yes" doesn't disqualify you from getting clearance.  it means that someone will ask you questions about it during the interview, and will look in to who this these people are and what your relationship with them was.  and what would they find?  someone who was active 35 years ago, never killed anyone, blah blah.  he would have passed.
 
 the questionnaire also asks "have you ever used illegal drugs".  saying yes doesn't disqualify you either.  if it did, W Bush wouldn't have passed either    :roll:  
 
 now you're the one who appears to not know what you're talking about.  shocker.  let me put in terms that you might understand: STFU LOL. [/b]

i guess obama would have to lie about the drug thing too huh?