That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure before I posted. So I looked it up on Wiki, and that's where I got the UI-C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born 1944) is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, known for his work in school reform and community organizing. We may have found a Wiki error if you're right!
I don't think he's 'plotting' anything with Ayers. I am saying that I don't care for Ayers politics or his worldview. I'd like to know what his relationship is with Obama. It seems more than the 'they are on some non-profit board together,' and so I think it worth knowing how much influence Ayers has. I'm not suggesting Obama holds Ayers political views, I'm suggesting I don't know and have a right to know.
Not really considering his hasn't asked for forgiveness nor has he offered an apology. Far from it, in fact. I would be fine if Obama said "he has done a lot of good work in Chicago for education and poverty remediation, but I absolutely do not agree with his actions in the Weatherman group." Seems inocuous enough to me, although we now know we can't trust wikipedia for his background!
Sheesh. The point is, Obama is 2 months from asking 100 millions *American Voters* to VOTE for him in the most important election possible. It is not so much what Obama may be 'plotting' with Ayers as it is an indication of a lack of solid judgment on Obama's part to be associating with the guy in the first place. Right or wrong, Ayers may be a changed man now for all we know (even though as of 2001 he clearly wasn't), the fact of the matter is, it MATTERS what the voters think and feel about things. And the FACTS are that Obama has a relationship with a radical terrorist, and that relationship may in fact be rather cozy. In any case, just being associated with the guy at all is going to be anough to cost votes. How many, we may never know. But how many more of these sour-note poor-judgment relationships are the voters going to tolerate before they either cast their vote for the other guy or just stay home in disgust? How many more 'clinging to their guns and their religion' remarks are people going to put up with? If Obama is supposed to be this great figure, this wonderful politician, he has certainly not demonstrated much of an understanding of the common voter so far. As I have already stated before, I am no fan of McCain either. But apart from the fact that Obama is a cookie-cutter lib and I am conservative, I am now finding it more and more uncomfortable to think of Obama as President simply because he has not shown that he has much actual wisdom or political acumen either, and in this world, where things are delicate and volatile, holy cow that is scaring me.
I find it a little hard to believe that in all the time Obama was in contact with Ayers, not once did his past as a member of the Weather Underground come up. Just like it's a little hard to swallow that Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and had no idea he was saying the sort of things that surfaced in those clips. No, I wasn't implying that. But the people Obama has chosen to associate himself with does matter. It gives us some indication as to who he identifies with and what he believes. It would be one thing if the Ayers relationship was the only instance of an association with a man of questionable character(and I'm using that term lightly). But when you throw in Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and Frank Marshall Davis(widely rumored to be the "Frank" mentioned by Obama in his book "Dreams From My Father"), it becomes a disturbing pattern. And it doesn't help matters that the Obama campaign is trying to prosecute the man who sponsored the TV ad linking him to Ayers and is sending out mass e-mails asking supporters to swarm a WGN radio show and blast the host for discussing the Ayers-Obama connection.
Wow..... So one can assume John Mccain doesn't employ or know people with questionable ties? From NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann NBC NEWS has confirmed that another McCain aide, Doug Davenport, has resigned because of his lobbying ties to the Myanmar government’s military junta. "Mr. Davenport has tendered his resignation and we have accepted it," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers writes. The Atlantic's Ambinder reported: “Doug Davenport, the regional campaign manager for the mid-Atlantic states, founded the DCI Group's lobbying practice and oversaw the contract with Myanmar in 2002. …He joins former DCI Group CEO Doug Goodyear, who resigned yesterday from the post of convention CEO after Newsweek reported that DCI was paid more than $300,000 to represent Myanmar's ruling junta. “Goodyear and Davenport were recruited by McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, who has been accused by some current and former McCain advisers of take insufficient care of McCain's reformer brand by appointing lobbyists to key positions. Ironically, as Newsweek reported, Goodyear was asked to become convention CEO after Davis's lobbying firm partner, Paul Manafort, was nixed because of his own close ties to foreign governments and controversial companies.”
I can understand this sentiment, but one would then need to hold mccain accountable for his associations as well. Keating 5 Phil "whiners" Gramm John "no one is uninsured" Goodman Hagee La Raza His quiet acceptance of smear/racist ads... That's just off the top of my head. Moreover, this is analogous to the wright situation. Holding Obama to some impossible standard with respect to his associations is absurd at best, but more likely intentionally disengenuous.
I imagine Obama associates himself with a wide variety of people, and there is a rather wide spectrum of beliefs represented there. That's a good thing. If a person is unwilling to even keep company with a person he disagrees with, I don't consider them to be a suitable Presidential candidate. What I find deeply irritating about these ads is they assume that refusing to even associate oneself with a controversial figure is a virtue. I'm sure a majority of Americans (surely their target audience) think this way, so this will be very effective. But I think it's terribly backwards. A true man of principle is willing to listen to and engage "the other side". If all he does is keep company with people he already agrees with, what does that tell us about his convictions?
Thanks for the shout out. 1) to "Coin a Phrase" means 'to invent a phrase', not 'borrow a phrase.' I know distinctions between those two are not at all your forte, but just so you know for next time. 2) Being "intellectually dishonest" does not mean having a contrary view, it means being deceitful. I can read this, think that the article inconsequential and is not in the top 500 things that i care about in this election - i would be disagreeing, not being dishonest. Cutting something I did not write and pasting it into a post as if were my words is what people mean by "dishonest." It does not matter, but just since you poofed in the other thread: Until you authentically some show remorse / take responsibility for your past plagiarism - I am going to ignore your posts as I have done in the past year or so. It was surely easier for you to minimize your dishonesty by saying "I should have cited it" and offering a folksy yet massively defensive non-apology than it was to actually cop to it. And look, you essentially got away with it. People still debate with you and take you seriously. But please do me a favor and think twice before deciding you are in a position to judge other posters in any way. PS. The best part is how in the Obama assassination thread you went to the "you take this BBS too seriously" tactic to avoid discussion. The argument itself is a preposterous defense from someone who glibly critiques the character of his peers, but especially from someone who posts here as much as you do. You really should dig up your massive plagiarism post. Besides not-accepting-responsibility for having behaved dishonestly, you narrated how sometimes you make an outline for big posts, use a text editor prior to posting, etc. Sorry - people who question you are the ones who take this too seriously? Thanks for projecting your pathology to my profile, but for better or worse, my views will remain my own.
Well said. These accusations of questionable associates always reminds me of this: (Obama as Christ-figure? lol.)
Give me an idea of what you think he may be covering up? What were they plotting? I just find it hard to believe that an association with someone who's so terrible that he's able to gain employment at UIC is really that big a deal.
And Charles Manson wrote a book about his murderous cult days. The fact that the radical terrorist wrote a book is relevant how exactly..?
