OBAMA OR MCCAIN WHO DO YOU CHOSE

[WARPIG]

Tell me this Hog... lets pretend that Obama WAS in fact buddy, buddy with Ayers... So? Big deal. What does that prove? Tell me how that would effect him as being POTUS?

 

I've read about all this and find nothing disheartening or out of line.

 

And Red, you haven't said one counter on any of mine post. Phil Gram, Keating 5 scandal... etc. How does this work now?

 

 

[Guest SuddenRedScare]

WARPIG ]

Tell me this Hog... lets pretend that Obama WAS in fact buddy, buddy with Ayers... So? Big deal. What does that prove? Tell me how that would effect him as being POTUS?

 

What if FDR was buddy, buddy with Hitler? I don't think people would have approved. It just doesn't sit well with voters.

[Deutscher75]

Today McCain asked Obama and the Debate Commission to post-pone this Friday's debate in order to return to Washington to deal with the proposed economic bail-out. Obama and the commission both refused and for the same reason; that Obama has been able to take part in hashing out the bail-out through the help of his aides while on the campaign trail and has been actively giving his input and arguments towards reaching an agreement on the plan. McCain has done no such thing except declare that he doesn't support the bail-out much as Obama did, but at least Obama is trying to help work it out and has stated when it comes time for the final vote he will be present for the vote, McCain has agreed to do the same. (That changed today when McCain announced he will suspend his campaign only on Thursday to return to Washington to try and help an agreement between both parties, as the GOP looks to McCain as their make shift leader aside President Bush.)

 

As far as McCain's involvement with the bail-out, he agreed with Obama's decision to support the bail-out as long as it met a certain list of criteria that surprisingly both candidates support and agree upon. (A political ploy by McCain most likely, as the economy is significantly McCain's weak spot of knowledge and expertise, because the list of terms they agree upon were 95% written by Obama)

 

McCain said in a New York press conference today “I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself.†McCain also said “It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.â€

 

Obama responded from a news conference in Clearwater, Florida, “there are times for politics and there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right.†But he said he saw no need to cancel the debate, scheduled for Friday night at the University of Mississippi.“This is exactly the time when people need to hear from the candidates,†Mr. Obama said. He added: “Part of the president’s job is to deal with more than one thing at once. In my mind it’s more important than ever.â€

 

Although Mr. McCain was the first to emerge on Wednesday afternoon and announce a change in campaign plans, Mr. Obama began the exchange with his Republican rival on Wednesday morning.

 

“At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal,†said Bill Burton, the spokesman for the Obama campaign.

 

“At 2:30 this afternoon,†he added, “Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement.†Some Democrats reacted skeptically to Mr. McCain’s surprise announcement, charging that it seemed like a political ploy to try to gain the confidence of voters concerned about the economy.

 

“What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?†Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said in an interview, referring to the scheduled start time of the debate. “I think this is all political — I wish McCain had shown the same concern when he didn’t show up in the Senate to vote on the extension of the renewable energy tax credit.â€

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

My Opinion: Yet even more of a reason why I prefer Obama. McCain has been avoiding the economic bail-out to focus on his campaign while Obama has been dealing with both the bail-out and his campaign and McCain has only called to suspend his campaign in lieu of the fact that Obama is doing MUCH more for the proposed bail-out then McCain. And now on top of avoiding the bail-out thus far, he's looking to post-pone and avoid the debate because the economy is going to be a HUGE issue in the debate and McCain knows he's fucked when he's presented with those questions on Friday night. IMO by going back to Washington on Friday to deal with the bail-out instead of doing the debate he's likely to avoid the economy as an issue, thus saving his ass from embarrassment by Obama when Obama blows McCain out on the economy.

 

And to the nay-sayers, I know Obama's policies are socialistic, but if you look at EVERY OTHER democratic nation in the world that ISN'T in our position with the economy, health care, and education they are FAR MORE ahead and have minimal problems with these issues. Kind of a shame when you have foreign companies and banks purchasing big companies of our industry and financial institutions just to help save our asses because republicans would rather continue a war and keep borrowing money from China.

 

Under McCain we'll go more into national debt with China and the Saudi's, under Obama sure our taxes will increase but his plans will fix our problems with OUR OWN MONEY and prevent our financial and industrial institutions from being further bought out just to save our asses from total collapse.

 

Obama has my vote, I'll deal with higher taxes and big government to prevent further foreign intervention in our economy and nation as a whole. This is the United State of America, the most independent and rights given nation on the Earth NOT a place for every other First World nation to have a sphere of influence over our economy, industry, and the everyday life of American citizens. I'll be damned if some British, Chinese, Japanese, or Saudi Bank is going to be the one I go to for a mortgage when I buy a house for the family I'm beginning to build.

 

America is NOT FOR SALE and I'll be damned if I have to raise my child under those types of circumstances when he/she is born in 6 months.

[WARPIG]

WARPIG ]

Tell me this Hog... lets pretend that Obama WAS in fact buddy, buddy with Ayers... So? Big deal. What does that prove? Tell me how that would effect him as being POTUS?

 

What if FDR was buddy, buddy with Hitler? I don't think people would have approved. It just doesn't sit well with voters.

 

That doesn't answer the question. What would their relationship have any bearing or effect with a Obama administration. Be specific please.

[Guest SuddenRedScare]

WARPIG ]

WARPIG ]

Tell me this Hog... lets pretend that Obama WAS in fact buddy, buddy with Ayers... So? Big deal. What does that prove? Tell me how that would effect him as being POTUS?

 

What if FDR was buddy, buddy with Hitler? I don't think people would have approved. It just doesn't sit well with voters.

 

That doesn't answer the question. What would their relationship have any bearing or effect with a Obama administration. Be specific please.

 

He has connections to a known terrorist. I'm not exactly sure what ramifications that would have if were to take office but I believe it is an issue that should get Americans thinking before they cast their vote. It also doesn't help that he refuses to explain their relationship.

[Deutscher75]

He has connections to a known terrorist. I'm not exactly sure what ramifications that would have if were to take office but I believe it is an issue that should get Americans thinking before they cast their vote. It also doesn't help that he refuses to explain their relationship.

 

Who a person meets or comes into contact with in their past is just that and nothing more. How can you hold Obama responsible for having met a terrorist? Just because he met him and possibly had dealings with him doesn't mean shit. You guys are insinuating that he knew the guy was a terrorist. How can Obama be held responsible for someone becoming a terrorist after meeting them? You can't! It's just a way of pointing a finger and trying to paint Obama as a bad guy. When sufficient proof and proof that can prove without a reasonable doubt that Obama knew this guy was a terrorist or was planning to become a terrorist can be provided then don't bring it up. It's just more bullshit to try and mar Obama's past. Sure he met him and may have dealt with him, but there still does not exist any proof that Obama knew what this guy was or was going to become.

 

You can't hold someone responsible for something that they didn't know or weren't informed of, it's absurd! It's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer's victims knew he was a serial killer and was a cannibal before going to his house and being killed, they didn't know and weren't informed of this so how where they supposed to know? Just like how was Obama supposed to know?

 

Too many people are too quick to point the finger and open their mouths before thinking. Have some common sense people and think before you pass judgment on something that there is NO standing proof for.

 

Ignorance is bliss and those who are uninformed breed stupidity.

[WARPIG]

Very well said Deutscher75... It's so glaringly obvious that this is another one of McCain's gimmicks. That's really all he has left. There is not reason why they can't do both. He tried this with inviting Obama to Iraq and then inviting Obama to come and debate him in a town hall meetings. He keeps attempting to look in charge by making everyone think he's setting the agenda. It's utterly silly and totally see-through.

[WARPIG]

LOL... Scare. That STILL doesn't explain what you think that relationship does. Can anyone here tell us? Do you think he will plan with Ayers to bomb america from within? Do you think he's going to make everyone stop pledging the allegiance in schools? LOL C'mon, give me something... anything. Hog, you there? LOL

[Deutscher75]

WARPIG ]

Very well said Deutscher75... It's so glaringly obvious that this is another one of McCain's gimmicks. That's really all he has left. There is not reason why they can't do both. He tried this with inviting Obama to Iraq and then inviting Obama to come and debate him in a town hall meetings. He keeps attempting to look in charge by making everyone think he's setting the agenda. It's utterly silly and totally see-through.

 

WORD!

[RNG187]

i think obama and his terrorist friends are responsible for 9/11..................LMFAO! (kidding)

[Deutscher75]

Crap...you guys got me so fired up about this stuff that I can't focus on the 10-page paper on Islam I have due in my Master's writing course tomorrow.

[Guest SuddenRedScare]

No, if you guy would have read my other posts rather than jump all over them in defense, you would have realized all I was saying is some people will stop and think. I don't know much about the Obama/Ayers subject because I don't really care. I care only about the main issues and not every minor detail in a candidates background. Just the fact that the subject is out in the open will cause people to ask questions about him.

[HogWild_101st]

Easy, no one said Obama was responsible for being associated with and launched his political career from the house of a guy that conducted terrorist acts at a later date. Repeat, No One Said That. Not here anyways.

 

William Ayers committed terrorists attacks, was aqquitted on a legal technicality, and boasted in a interview on September 11, 2001 that he "didn't do enough" while a member of the U.S. terrorist group "Weatherman Underground" which bombed US government buildings and killed at least one NYC Police Officer during their terrorist activities. He did all but boast about his past crimes before ever meeting Obama. He boasted about his former terrorist activities 6 years after launching Obama's political career in his living room 6 years earlier.

 

So while Obama could claim ignorance of what Ayers did as a young man, Obama can't claim ignorance of what a self admitted US terrorist said in a interview on 9-11 while living in Chicago. Or maybe Obama can claim that he is that ill informed. But that's Obama's choice isn't it?

 

I don't live in Chicago, and I know what William Ayers said on 9-11, and I don't even know the man personally.

 

Do your own research and make up your own mind. I would just point out that not post after mine on the Ayers subject used a reputable news source to counter what I have posted. Does that matter? You decide.

[Deutscher75]

No, if you guy would have read my other posts rather than jump all over them in defense, you would have realized all I was saying is some people will stop and think. I don't know much about the Obama/Ayers subject because I don't really care. I care only about the main issues and not every minor detail in a candidates background. Just the fact that the subject is out in the open will cause people to ask questions about him.

 

Hey Scare I wasn't jumping on you just to let you know, sorry if it came across that way, I was just making a blanket statement on the issue as a whole, not against you.

 

And Hog, again there is still NO standing proof Obama knew of these acts. Even though I'm a History Master's Student, I never heard of Ayers until he was brought into the media light recently and just because Obama lives in the same city as Ayers doesn't mean he necessarily knew of Ayers and his acts prior to meeting him or dealing with him.

 

And Ayers from what I see is an American Compatriot who targeted the Federal Government through Weatherman because of his radical leftist idealogies against the Vietnam War. He may be considered a "terrorist" but he's nothing more than an activist who protested against the war and took it to a radical level. He targeted the Government for it's actions in another nation we didn't belong in, not his fellow citizens; though some did die unintentionally as a result of collateral damage.

[Guest SuddenRedScare]

Hey Scare I wasn't jumping on you just to let you know, sorry if it came across that way, I was just making a blanket statement on the issue as a whole, not against you.

 

Don't worry about it. Just do your damn work.

 

[Deutscher75]

And Hog the interview in which Ayers made that comment that "he didn't do enough" took place before 9/11, the article in which the interview was cited just happened to be run on the same day.

[HogWild_101st]

And Hog the interview in which Ayers made that comment that "he didn't do enough" took place before 9/11, the article in which the interview was cited just happened to be run on the same day.

 

So you admit that William Ayers is a terrorists that attacked the United States, and in a interview when asked about how he felt about his terrorist acts said that he felt he had not done enough. Bombing several government buildings and killing at least one NYC Policeman was not enough to satisfy Ayers.

 

But your point is what day the interview was conducted is somehow important? That if the interview was done on a day different than 11 September 2001, that somehow makes William Ayers past deeds and comments OK?

[Deutscher75]

HogWild ]

And Hog the interview in which Ayers made that comment that "he didn't do enough" took place before 9/11, the article in which the interview was cited just happened to be run on the same day.

 

So you admit that William Ayers is a terrorists that attacked the United States, and in a interview when asked about how he felt about his terrorist acts said that he felt he had not done enough. Bombing several government buildings and killing at least one NYC Policeman was not enough to satisfy Ayers.

 

But your point is what day the interview was conducted is somehow important? That if the interview was done on a day different than 11 September 2001, that somehow makes William Ayers past deeds and comments OK?

 

No I don't admit that Ayers is a terrorist that attacked the United States.

 

There's a fine line between political activist who tried to convey his point peacefully, was shut out then turned to radicalism to convey his point and him being considered a terrorist. Think of the time period and think of who he was trying to convey his point to (the Federal Government) and what that point was (get out of Vietnam where we didn't belong). Yes, by definition what Ayers did can be considered terrorism, but looking at what he did from a historical perspective he isn't a terrorist nor were his actions terroristic BECAUSE of how he went about his actions of bombing his targets and the reasons why he did bomb them to begin with.

 

Ayers may have caused the death's of some innocent, but it was never his intent. The views of Ayers, his followers, and those involved in Weatherman were never to harm anyone! And it can be read as so time and time again in both the doctrine he wrote of his beliefs at the time and then again in his book published in 2000, just as well it stated the same principles in the creed of Weatherman. The intent of both him and the institution he represented (Weatherman), was merely to attack and destroy Government institutions intending to let the Government know of his/Weatherman's disapproval and by no means ever intended the fear or death of the innocent masses. Ayers even declared that the accidental death of the NYC police officer that was killed during one of the bombings has always been something that has weighed heavy on his heart because he never intended for anyone to get hurt. Just simple destruction of Government property.

 

This can easily be seen from the times during the day the bombing attacks occurred; they always took place at times when the least amount of human damage was likely, at night, when few if any people were around, again in an attempt to prevent the loss of innocent human life. Ayers knew the difference between who was responsible and needed to be shown Weatherman meant business and who the innocent were. A terrorist by definition cares not of how precious human life is and has no respect for it just as they have none for the property they destroy. In retrospect Ayers did have respect for the property he was destroying because he knew that by specifically targeting certain places it would get his point across and it did, though not to the extent he wished which is where his "didn't do enough" comment comes into play.

 

When Ayers stated that he "didn't do enough" it wasn't intended to be taken as he was trying to hurt people, rather he "didn't do enough" to show the Government they needed to stop their actions in Vietnam, withdraw all American fighting forces, and change It's policies.

 

Ayers didn't attack the United States, that would insinuate that he attacked both property and the American population intentionally to see it's demise in some manner, which is not so. He only intentionally attacked Federal Government holdings and institutions such as the Pentagon and the Statue that he destroyed 4 times with no intent and as many precautions to prevent the loss of human life as possible, solely aimed at making change within the Government. Your viewpoint is significantly flawed because you don't take the circumstances into account and summarily lump him in the same boat as those who committed the acts of 9/11, which is nowhere near at all being the truth of what he did and is responsible for.

 

What didn't "satisfy" Ayers was that his actions didn't persuade the Government enough to stop what they were doing at the time, NOT that he was thirsty for more blood as you make him out to be. When dealing with an issue like this remember it is important to make your decisions and thoughts objectively without bias and observing all the facts and events that took place. I can tell from the way you speak of Ayers you have not done this, therefore what you say is an opinion and not fact. Which is the truth because your viewpoint is one of subjective nature, which 99% of the time is how historical fact is distorted into fiction and thus becomes opinion.

 

William Ayers never carried out a terrorist attack against the United States, rather he committed acts against the Federal Government in protest as a patriot of the United States. The Federal Government is an entity of the United States that we elect to run the United States and can be changed at anytime, even if necessary through destructive means, it even declares such action as appropriate in the Declaration of Independence. (Remember that the colonial militias during the American Revolution carried out vast guerrilla tactics against the British ruling government and the British military. Britain's leadership including James III and the British military referred to these tactics as being terrorist actions. Americans stand by those tactics and actions to this day as fighting for our independence even though by your definition and the current American Governments definition that those acts where "terroristic", in reality they weren't. Any Government that is coming under attacks that threaten it's security as a ruling entity will declare such acts as acts of terrorism. Again, that theme is prevalent throughout all of history. The French Monarchy declared the French Revolutionists actions as terroristic as well, but it wasn't so, especially considering how closely their revolution was modeled after our own.

 

And I can guarantee that if we traveled back in time the founding fathers would agree full-on that Ayers is not a terrorist, but merely someone who desired change and acted upon that desire to change the ruling government through destructive means, only to achieve a positive outcome (quintessentially a patriot). The terrorists of 9/11 wished to see the demise of the United States as a whole not just that of the ruling government alone. Ayers wished to keep the United States in relative peace, but sought change in our ruling body, the Federal Government. That's the difference, therefore by proper explanation and objective definition Ayers is not a terrorist nor was he ever, rather he was a man who sought change much as our founding fathers did and acted upon that desire to change.

 

And yes it does matter when Ayers made those comments and when the interview in which he made them did take place. If he had made those comments ON 9/11 the interview would have most likely been done after the events of that day had taken place and he would have been portrayed more as one of the hijackers who attacked the twin towers and pentagon, instead of being a political activist who sought change in the Federal Government, which is what he really is. I do believe that what he did was "OK" because his intentions were to bring peace and positive changes in Government and were not intended to destroy the United States as a whole from within; as you make him out to be. I agree that the accidental death's associated with his actions aren't applaudable, but from an objective viewpoint are also far from being related to terrorism.

 

(Now on a side note separate from the above argument.) In my own opinion I wish more people in this nation had the balls that Ayers had, this nation wouldn't be in the place it is now because of our current ruling entity and would probably be a lot better off if our own Government didn't scare us into submission from rising against it. Again remember it was this exact "tyranny" that caused the American Revolutionists, amongst other issues, to take up arms against the British and fight for Independence. So what say you Hog? Are the American Revolutionists to be considered terrorists as well?

[GOAT]

ELECT GOAT!

 

 

[size=4][color=blue]I Have NO Skeletons in my closet!!![/color][/size] 

 

I rented a Storage Unit..

[Deutscher75]

Goat ]

ELECT GOAT!

 

 

[size=4][color=blue]I Have NO Skeletons in my closet!!![/color][/size] 

 

I rented a Storage Unit..

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[CDBS14]

Goat ]

ELECT GOAT!

 

 

[size=4][color=blue]I Have NO Skeletons in my closet!!![/color][/size] 

 

I rented a Storage Unit..

 

you have won my vote ;D

[HogWild_101st]

I was wondering all day at work what response would be waiting for me when I got back home.

 

Deutscher75 all I can say is WOW!!!!!

 

But hey, this is a free country and you my friend are free to believe whatever you want.

[Guest SuddenRedScare]

I may refer back to this page if I ever have to do an essay on Ayers. I could just copy and paste.

[Red0ctobeR]

D75...

 

Oh my LORD are you defending William Ayers? Dude he KILLED people, AMERICAN people. No one should be revered for that.

 

Sorry bro the Federal Government no matter what we think about them is VERY American. I honestly did not imagine someone saying what you just said. Unbelievable

 

You have completely lost me.

[WARPIG]

"A patriot is someone who loves his country all the time and his government when it deserves it." -- Mark Twain.