Is it a candidate's responsibilty to now his/her company?

Please point out one Freudian slip of bigotry in any of my posts. Thanks!

BTW, I did answer your question, you have obviously chosen to ignore it.

 

Seconded.

 

This is a funny thread. Let's say for the sake of argument that Ayers is best buddies with Obama much like the Saudi royals are best buddies with Bush. What could that imaginary relationship possibly do to our nation that would in any way compare to Bush's kid gloves approach to the country that gave us most of the 9/11 hijackers. I mean Ayers is an old man college professor who as a young man protested the Vietnam war by bombing empty government buildings. The Saudi royals however are among the richest, most powerful people on Earth who just happen to fund the radical Wahhabi form of Islam that is responsible for the spread of Islamic terrorism.

IROC, you make the call buddy.

 

Bush and his long time terrorist supporting buddy.

 

I don't think so, everyone has friends or acquaintances that are a little strange, heck, I have friends that are even Texan's fans.

But you can't hold a candidate responsible for his acquaintences....

If it is a business dealing, you can garner something but friends...nah.

DD

 

no it isn't

He's answered the question. It's not good enough for you.

 

I think the fact that you read it that way says more about you than it does about me and now you're just being deliberately obtuse (at least I hope). You know exactly what I meant.

 

The Saudis are responsible for indoctrinating a whole generation of killers and that's your take? Not credible.

 

Weighing in here. I think a candidate is respsonsible for their associations as that is a sign of judgement. Though as DonnyMost noted the context and extent of the relationship matters.

For Obama the Ayers thing isn't new and has been hashed out already in the primary. So far nothing shows that Ayers is a very close associate of Obama and that Obama has condemned Ayers' past. I think a bigger issue is Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright and with Tony Rezko considering the first was his pastor for 20 years and the second he had financial dealings with. Both those relationships have also been hashed out though in the primary and there doesn't seem anything new with either.

As I said during the primaries that the long primaries very likely would help Obama by giving him a more thorough national vetting. I don't think there is anything new now to argue regarding Obama's associations as we've know about these particular skeletons in Obama's closet and Obama has already addressed them.

 

I agree with you about Ayers, and Rezko and disagree with you about Wright.

A connection to Ayers might be bad because he was associated with bombing government buildings. But an association with Wright doesn't really mean that much because Wright isn't guilty of anything except occasionally branching off from thoughtful, inspirational speech into crazy talk. That's not really important and doesn't matter that much.

Rezko could be a potential problem because financial dealings with a crook isn't good. Though investigations have thus far shown Obama did absolutely nothing wrong.

None of it compares to McCain and his Iran/Contra group, or Palin the Alaskan Independence Party, though.

 

This is why nobody takes you seriously. Literally, in the post above this you mentioned how you don't buy into the talking points. Then the very next post you cite a Palin talking point from earlier this week.

 

Name one thing McCain has actually reformed.....

 

I suggest that people who fund Islamic terrorists that kill innocents all over the world have no problem lying about it. Your take is like asking Al Capone if he's was a criminal. As if murderers aren't beyond lying about it.

 

Honestly, no, I don't care about the associations candidates have with bad people. Reading this thread, I've been trying to think of someone I condemn for hanging with the wrong crowd, and I haven't come up with anything. Now, if they do something wrong themselves with these other people, that's obviously a problem.

That McCain was friends with Keating doesn't bother me. That Palin hangs out with Alaskan separatists doesn't bother me. That Obama pals around with terrorists (if that were even true) doesn't bother me. That Jesus breaks bread with prostitutes and tax collectors doesn't bother me. It would bother me if a candidate refused to talk to or be friendly with someone like Keating or Wright or Ayers just because they disapprove of some things those people did or believed.

I suppose you can see that dynamic reflected in Obama's relationships. He can maintain a professional relationship with Ayers. He also wants to have a diplomatic relationship with Iran. Some see that as poor judgement in choosing acquantances, but I think it is a recognition that you don't have to agree with someone to have a productive relationship.

 

Ayers was not found guilty of any wrong doing either. I assume you don't have a problem with him either?