Palin Plays The Bill Ayers Card

[FCP Bob 1,312]

In the Official Obama Campaign website they have a Fact Check posted 17 April. This item is titles "Fact Check on Obama and Ayers"They give articles that are meant to explain the actual relationship between Obama and Ayers. One of these articles indicates that "yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers". This is from Obama's own website and that "friendly" relationship is not disputed.

Can you link to the actual quote since saying that somebody is "friendly" with somebody can have very many meanings.I'm friendly with the son of one of the people in my condo who I went to high school with in the sense that when he visits his parents and we see each other we exchange pleasantries but we aren't friends.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Can you link to the actual quote since saying that somebody is "friendly" with somebody can have very many meanings.I'm friendly with the son of one of the people in my condo who I went to high school with in the sense that when he visits his parents and we see each other we exchange pleasantries but we aren't friends.

From the Obama Campaign Website Posted 17 Aprilhttp://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/04/Chicago Sun Times: Obama's Connection To Ayers Is A "Phony Flap". The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "But Ayers, it is also true to say, has since followed in the footsteps of the great Chicago social worker Jane Addams, crusading for education and juvenile justice reform. His 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, has been praised for exposing how Cook County's juvenile justice system all but eliminates a child's chance for redemption. Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama's middle name is Hussein. That doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn't make him unpatriotic. And he's friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn't make him a bomb thrower. Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/3/08]Here Obama does nothing to deny the "Friendly" nature of their relationship even in his own Fact Check - in fact he posts an article that confirms it. No one here is accusing BHO of being a bomb thrower. We are claiming he is friendly with one.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Would you remain friendly with a KKK Member who bombed Black Baptist Churches just because he was on the same Board of the Special Olympics with you?

I wouldn't jump in his face and start yelling racist racist but I wouldn't let the presence of one detestable person keep me from serving a good cause. There are many people who you may not like that you have to deal with in life and you deal with them professionally. Over the years there have been cases of US Senators and Members of Congress who in their past were out and out racists and KKK sympathizers, does that mean that others shouldn't have any dealings with them ?

Ok, so you would serve on a board with a known serial killer/rapist who got off on a technicality if the board was for a good cause?

We're starting to get into such out there what ifs that it's pretty stupid.A person like this I would feel would still be a threat to mine and others safety so I would try and stay as far away from them as possible.Now I hope your next point won't be to say that Ayers is the equivalent of a seriel killer.

[copernicus 0]

Its interesting that BHO writes about nearly everything in his life, but somehow skips 5 very productive (in his socialist worldview) years on projects that Ayers was involved in. Buthere is the real problem

[CaneBrain 95]

Would you remain friendly with a KKK Member who bombed Black Baptist Churches just because he was on the same Board of the Special Olympics with you?

Would you remain friendly and go on the radio show of someone who masterminded Watergate and then advised David Koresh and his WACO nutjobs to start a firefight with the FBI and "aim for the head"?Because McCain did.And I dont care. Everyone in politics met someone shady at some point or took money from someone who is not a good guy. There are probably tons of people who think like KKK members who will vote McCain. Should he give the votes back? Does McCain's flip-flop on Jerry Falwell mean McCain believes we brought 9/11 on ourselves for not condemning homosexuality more strongly?Just because you know someone or once served on a board with someone does not mean you agree with everything they have done nor do you concur with everything they have ever said.This whole argument is complete nonsense. I dont for a second believe any of the non-brain dead conservatives on this forum thinks Barack obama thinks blowing up Federal buildings was good. He probably does support Ayers goals of improving Chicago education. I doubt they have anything in common beyond that (though they both might like deep dish pizza).

[85suited 0]

He probably does support Ayers goals of improving Chicago education.

LOL, Improving educationThis from http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/10/06/oba...cial-injustice/The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was supposed to be all about educational reform. The original funds from Annenberg were $50-60 mil. With ensuing fundraising efforts, that tally ended at approx $160 mil. However over $100 mil of that went to political purposes via community organizing and campaigns for LSC friendly candidates that Ayers/Obama supported for educational reform in Chicago schools.Since Ayers and Obama teamed up for educational reform, just what kind of “reform” (which ended in failure) was Obama helping Ayers attempt to achieve?For that we dig back to a 2006 interview between William Ayers, and Venezuelan socialist Luis Bonilla-Molina, founder of the Centro Internacional Miranda (CIM). HotAir’s Ed Morrissey posted one of the 12 Ayers videos included in this collection back in August of this year. He also noted the interview took place with the Che portrait hanging in the background… oddly appropriate. In Ed’s piece, he chose the one where Ayers discussed how the Weather Underground was a “great teaching moment”. You can read Ed’s thoughts at the link above.I, however, found the last two videos of Ayers’ interview far more revealing about Ayers’ vision of the future for US public schools. Since Ayers and Obama share a common vision, and Obama minces his words about his educational reform to cater to a nation who doesn’t cotton to outright socialist/Marxist ideals, perhaps Ayers can verbalize what Obama dances around

In the above video, Ayers moves to his criticism of the US public school system. He states the system is “under attack”… and that it is obsessed with a singular metric measure of success… something he defines as too “narrow” a test for intelligence.Ayers describes how the system is relentless, attempting to measure student against student, and how zero tolerance led to the exclusion of many.He bashes what he calls “market metaphors” used in education… pushing the “ownership society” and “excellence”. And calls No Child Left behind a “lovely mask” for a “vicious policy”.~~~Wow… lots of words there. To the layman, perhaps they sound innocent. But just what is Ayers attempting to accomplish in our schools? Homogenous mediocre. So what is this No Child Left Behind? The simple goal - however ineptly executed since (another battle for another day…) - is that *all* children will be proficient in English language and math by the year 2014. Despite all the partisan sniping at a bill which did something… which is far more than previous Congresses have done… the premise of the bill still remains a bipartisan goal.The ability to read and write is not a measure of intelligence, as Ayers seems to allude. It is providing a youth with the basic tools to function in the American society as an productive adult. It is not an IQ test, nor should it be construed as a student’s limitations. However without the ability to add, and communicate in our society, a newly emerging adult is limited in their future success.Ayers’ reference to zero tolerance, certainly a worthy topic of debate under normal circumstances, strikes me as odd. Led to the “exclusion of many”?? Or did it just led to the exclusion of those who violated the school policy of drugs, violence or firearms? Now I’m not an “either/or” kind or person in discipline issues. I don’t think there is one punishment fits all. But then, schools today are very different than when I attended. Violence and gangs are all too prevalent, and these school massacres are just unacceptable. Students threatening teachers, unable to defend themselves or discipline students, is also unacceptable.However Ayers’ extreme view that it leads to “exclusion” is also overstated. So this controversial issue I’ll leave as not one of the major bones of contention with Ayers’ educational visions.But the next point about Ayers’ educational philosphy is the one I deem most dangerous… and that is to eliminate competition between students, deemphasize the “ownership society” and demean “excellence”. In an Ayers’ world, all are equal. There is no “excellence”, no drive for “ownership” as a reward fro that excellence. It is all that we can be, and what we can achieve that lights ambition.If we remove competition, we remove ambition. If we remove ambition, we remove excellence. When we remove excellence, we become a homogeneous society of mediocrity. We become socialists/Marxists.No thank you….

A few minutes into this video, and that dangerous homogeneous mediocrity finds it’s roots. Ayers pays homage to Rosa Luxemburg - co-founder of the Communist Party of Germany in 1919.I’ll make it easy for you Wiki fans, and provide the link for you here… since I know you’ll race there first.Luxemburg was credited by many for giving socialism a human face. She was certainly controversial… often battling different factions of socialism and Marxism. And certainly, an early feminist.But despite internal socialist battles, Luxemburg always had one constant enemy.. a capitalist society. Ayers uses a Luxemburg quote from her prison writings when giving his advice to Venezuelan teachers…. that it can be very satisfying to make a difference. He agrees with Luxemburg that teachers should also be activists - that they can and should be in the forefront of reform for social injustice.Today the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation still keeps it’s focus on reform thru political education. The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is committed to instigating, promoting and supporting political education. Its primary task is to offer people the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and abilities that enable them to participate in the search for alternatives to the status quo. It encourages people to get involved in politics and provides them with resources to do so more effectively. To this end the Foundation plans and organises opportunities for political learning that offer interested parties the chance to experience growing competence and confidence in their personal relationship to politics. It focuses on providing hand tools for political activities as well as improving methodological and didactic qualifications; this approach includes translating latest research results in the social sciences into educational offers of practical relevance. On another level, the Foundation arranges and provides counselling in adult political education processes directed at professional and volunteer mediators of education in and outside of schools. It also provides relevant literature and other types of support for events organised by third parties. This is the woman Bill Ayers admires. He patterns his modern day activism after Luxemburg’s doctrine of teachers as activists for reform. To mold the minds of our youth is to achieve a peaceful revolution for the future. And what is his “reform”? Undisguised socialism…And who was his partner in educational reform in Chicago? A hand picked newbie in the Chicago political machine, Barack Obama. A man, and a wife, who peppers their speeches with phrases from Saul Alinsky. Now, remember where William Ayers - Obama’s partner in Chicago educational reform - comes from on indoctrination of America’s youth.Now reread educational goals - Obama style… Invest in early childhood education and higher educationFight for social & economic justice begins in the classroom Merit pay ok if based on career instead of a single test Evolution & science aren’t incompatible with Christian faith Children’s First Agenda: zero to five early education Put billions of dollars into early childhood education Need after-school and summer programs with good parenting Sex education needed to help children discuss molestation Any familiar phrasing and ideology? ala fighting “social injustice”? This is done, of course, via political education in schools. Obama’s advocating getting a hold of America’s youth at the earliest of ages, focusing on putting billions in early childhood education. And just what would these public schools teach our children at these impressionable ages?

[copernicus 0]

Would you remain friendly and go on the radio show of someone who masterminded Watergate Watergate was just another in a series of dirty tricks and spying from both sides. It was no big deal until Nixon made it one. and then advised David Koresh and his WACO nutjobs to start a firefight with the FBI and "aim for the head"? He didnt advise DK to do that, he was responding to an anonymous caller on a talk radio show about the right to self defense and the right to bear arms.What I said is, if a federal agent comes knocking at your door-- specifically BATF--says I have a search warrant, open the door, let him in, stand aside and let him search. What I said is, if they come shooting--they're shooting at you now--you have the right to self-defense, and in that event, if they've got a body-protection armor on, you are best to shoot to the groin area." --G. Gordon Liddy, Crossfire, 4/25/95 "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." --G. Gordon Liddy, radio show, 8/26/94 This whole argument is complete nonsense. I dont for a second believe any of the non-brain dead conservatives on this forum thinks Barack obama thinks blowing up Federal buildings was good. He probably does support Ayers goals of improving Chicago education. I doubt they have anything in common beyond that (though they both might like deep dish pizza).

Ayers ADMITTED goal is not to improve Chicago education, its to indoctrinate all American students with his leftist philosophies.

[CaneBrain 95]

Ayers ADMITTED goal is not to improve Chicago education, its to indoctrinate all American students with his leftist philosophies.

I believe Obama's goal was to improve education. I think the boards he wanted to be on to do that sometimes had Ayers on them. I trust that Obama does not in any way believe what Ayers believes just because they were on a few boards together. If that is what Ayers believes, then I am a little sad he gets to be a university professor. But that does not change my position on Obama any more than I think McCain condoned the crazy things Falwell used to say just because he spoke at Falwell's college's graduation.And I still dont think it is ok to tell people to unload on ATF agents (and geez, telling people to shoot at the groin? What a sicko.)

[nutzbuster 7]

LEAVE BOB ALONE!!!

[85suited 0]

As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change. This is the cause to which Ayers has devoted himself for the last few decades, the post-terrorist portion of his life. You might say that he has found a peaceful way to advance the same causes he once championed through violence.

[vbnautilus 48]

Its a simple question, and yes you are avoiding it.

You know very well that many apparently "simple" questions require answers that are not simple.Many questions of this type are attempts to manipulate the answerer into some kind of trap, like this one brokaw asked at the last debate:Brokaw: This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?McCain: Maybe.Brokaw: Maybe.McCain: Depends on how we respond to Russia and it depends on a lot of things. If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.McCain didn't fall into the trap; the question contained false options that made it appear a simple question on the surface, but someone who understands the issue needn't respond with one of the options required by the questioner. Same thing here. I am saying that my decision to serve on a board involves mostly a consideration of what the organization I am serving for stands for. It doesn't involve doing background checks on the other board members. If I am asked to serve on a board for an organization that has the potential to cure cancer in the next five years, I'm not going to shirk that responsibility and throw away the whole organization because one board member engaged in past violent behaviors. What am I afraid that I am going to catch the violence bug and go on a rampage? If the organization is currently doing good, that is the most important thing. I can also imagine circumstances in which I wouldn't want to serve on a board. I entirely reject your notion that one board member having a violent past should automatically disqualify that organization from my consideration.

[copernicus 0]

I entirely reject your notion that one board member having a violent past should automatically disqualify that organization from my consideration.

If that includes someone with Bill Ayers history then I would have expected you to say youd make some effort to have him removed. As it is, I find your position "immoral".

[Loismustdie 0]

This may be in my top 3 most laughable threads ever. "Look, if Mr. Kazcynski wants to serve on this board for the children then damnit I am with him, it's for the children for gods sakes." When did retarded become so mainstream?

[85suited 0]

Ted was a good man, he was exploring how to run the post office more efficiently>..Timmy was good too, he was looking for new uses of fertilzer...what a joke

[irishguy 14]

This may be in my top 3 most laughable threads ever. "Look, if Mr. Kazcynski wants to serve on this board for the children then damnit I am with him, it's for the children for gods sakes." When did retarded become so mainstream?

And where do those of you (ie: 85, you, cop etc) draw the line? You wouldn't serve on a board you felt you could make a difference with Ayers so what about a rapist or a theif or someone who was involved in a radical organization but didn't blow sh-t up?And if it's immoral to serve on a board with him where is this line draw? Are his neighbours immoral for living next to him? Are his co workers immoral for working with him? Are his students immoral for being taught by him? Are the people who've benefited from charities and organization he's worked with immoral?

[Nimue1995 1]

This may be in my top 3 most laughable threads ever. "Look, if Mr. Kazcynski wants to serve on this board for the children then damnit I am with him, it's for the children for gods sakes." When did retarded become so mainstream?

I went to a presentation by the Abolition Coalition Against the Death Penalty that my daughter works for and heard David Kazcynski speak. I have to say that he was an excellent speaker, well-educated and definitely worth my time. However by your version of immorality, I'd have to forego going to see him because his brother built bombs that killed people. Funny thing is I always thought Christianity was about redemption not condemnation. At least the Christianity I believe in. Do you think Jesus would refuse to serve on a board with Bill Ayers?

[Loismustdie 0]

I went to a presentation by the Abolition Coalition Against the Death Penalty that my daughter works for and heard David Kazcynski speak. I have to say that he was an excellent speaker, well-educated and definitely worth my time. However by your version of immorality, I'd have to forego going to see him because his brother built bombs that killed people. Funny thing is I always thought Christianity was about redemption not condemnation. At least the Christianity I believe in. Do you think Jesus would refuse to serve on a board with Bill Ayers?

Who was talking about David? Forgive, yes, for those who are repentant. I don't have to forgive anyone who is unrepentant. Like..... Ayers? And I damn sure wouldn't be seen/heard/observed/tied to anyone as blatantly unrepentant as he is for his deeds. Keep twisting Gods word, though, it works for millions of other "christians". Until they die. Yes, Jesus would definitely avoid Ayers. Jesus did not condone violence, remember? Or, did you just skip that part altogether?

[Loismustdie 0]

And where do those of you (ie: 85, you, cop etc) draw the line? You wouldn't serve on a board you felt you could make a difference with Ayers so what about a rapist or a theif or someone who was involved in a radical organization but didn't blow sh-t up?And if it's immoral to serve on a board with him where is this line draw? Are his neighbours immoral for living next to him? Are his co workers immoral for working with him? Are his students immoral for being taught by him? Are the people who've benefited from charities and organization he's worked with immoral?

The line is so easily drawn it makes me want to puke that this is even a question. "He's involved? Yeah, I can't be here." "But, Mr. Loismustdie, we would really like your support in this matter." "I'm glad to hear that- he goes, I stay. It's as simple as that." The reason this is such a huuuuuggggeeeee argument has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with some bullshit notion cooked up that says we must be bendable in all aspects of morality to exist within society, and must allow for virtually anything. This same kind of thinking is what makes people have the audacity to say "Well, it's just pictures of your daughter fully clothed at a playground, all the pedophiles do is enjoy the photos, the site is perfectly harmless." The problem isn't that morality doesn't exist, the problem isn't that there isn't a clear path,the problem is you and every other person who think like this are working 24 -7 to make that path as wide as possible, with caveats amd contingincies and ways around and back doors. Which is why the country is where it's at. We are a cesspool of available options and the vast majority of the players have no moral spine to speak of. For lack of better words you are for sale, you can be negotiated to accept less that what is morally right.

[irishguy 14]

The line is so easily drawn it makes me want to puke that this is even a question. "He's involved? Yeah, I can't be here." "But, Mr. Loismustdie, we would really like your support in this matter." "I'm glad to hear that- he goes, I stay. It's as simple as that."

Which is funny because you didn't even answer it. So I'll ask again. Where do those of you (ie: 85, you, cop etc) draw the line? You wouldn't serve on a board you felt you could make a difference with Ayers so what about a rapist or a theif or someone who was involved in a radical organization but didn't blow sh-t up?And if it's immoral to serve on a board with him where is this line draw? Are his neighbours immoral for living next to him? Are his co workers immoral for working with him? Are his students immoral for being taught by him? Are the people who've benefited from charities and organization he's worked with immoral?EDIT: It's not at all about "people like me being for sale" I consider myself highly ethical and have taken many stances in business and my personal life that likely caused me harm/money/advancement but were on issues I felt I had to take a stand. The problem is people like me don't see the world in black and white, we understand that a big section of it falls into the gray.

[Loismustdie 0]

Which is funny because you didn't even answer it. So I'll ask again. Where do those of you (ie: 85, you, cop etc) draw the line? You wouldn't serve on a board you felt you could make a difference with Ayers so what about a rapist or a theif or someone who was involved in a radical organization but didn't blow sh-t up?And if it's immoral to serve on a board with him where is this line draw? Are his neighbours immoral for living next to him? Are his co workers immoral for working with him? Are his students immoral for being taught by him? Are the people who've benefited from charities and organization he's worked with immoral?

I answered it, very clearly. You just aren't listening. Read what I said, again. Ponder for awhile and it will come to you.

[irishguy 14]

I answered it, very clearly. You just aren't listening. Read what I said, again. Ponder for awhile and it will come to you.

I'm a little groggy today feel free to bold your direct response to the direct question or is it like one of those fancy pictures where if I stare long enough I'll see a boat or in this case an actual answer to the question(s)?

[Jeepster80125 0]

It's a non-story for most Obama supporters and in the present political climate it's likely to turn off more undecideds than make for any poltical support for McCain. I hate negative swift boat campaigning and therefore will discount a great deal of it no matter which party it comes from.Being an ass again LMD. It's unbecoming to a mayoral candidate . Still, this has been hashed and rehashed on this thread. And there aren't any on here that are changing any other's minds about it. But it is amusing the way the McCain people keep on hoping it will. I only wish you would keep this in mind whenever you open your e-mouth.Anyway, just so you know, I'm pretty weakly for Obama and even less so now that he's voted for the friggin' Wall Street bailout. McCain might have just gained my vote if he'd had the courage of his convictions and voted against it. But since they both voted for it, it's a wash.

You're a liar to sit there and say that you'd ever vote for McCain. I usually hear this from uneducated people. I'm sure if McCain voted against the bail out you'd be here as his biggest chearleader. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound here?This is why your opinions are laughable and solutions rejected.

[Nimue1995 1]

Who was talking about David? Forgive, yes, for those who are repentant. I don't have to forgive anyone who is unrepentant. Like..... Ayers? And I damn sure wouldn't be seen/heard/observed/tied to anyone as blatantly unrepentant as he is for his deeds. Keep twisting Gods word, though, it works for millions of other "christians". Until they die. Yes, Jesus would definitely avoid Ayers. Jesus did not condone violence, remember? Or, did you just skip that part altogether?

I don't recall Jesus avoiding any sinners except the Pharisees. And even them, he talked to on occasion. Do you think that the only people He died to redeem were ones you picked? And I'm sure you've repented of all your sins too hmm? How many years did you go unrepentant? And if you never talk to him, is there any chance for him to repent? If you never associate with sinners how do they hear about Jesus? If you read the same Bible I have, you'd see that Jesus did associate with sinners. And He didn't require them to repent before he went among them and associated with them. Because unlike you, He recognized that in order to be saved, people need to hear first. But if you want to believe that Jesus wouldn't associate with anyone like Bill Ayers then I assume you'd not be doing any prison ministry either since it would cause you to have to associate with some unrepentant sinners. Anyway, enough of this here. Any more I'll take to the religious forum if you want to continue the discussion.

You're a liar to sit there and say that you'd ever vote for McCain. I usually hear this from uneducated people. I'm sure if McCain voted against the bail out you'd be here as his biggest chearleader. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound here?This is why your opinions are laughable and solutions rejected.

Why do you find it so unlikely that I could consider voting for John McCain? I'm not all that hot on Obama as I've said before and have been seriously considering voting for a third party candidate. But if John McCain showed some balls and voted against the bailout against his party and President's wishes then yeah, I'd consider voting for him. Just like I'll continue to vote for John Tester in our state and will be voting for the Republican who's running against Max Baucus because Max chose to not only vote for the bailout but helped write it with all the friggin' pork in it. But why should I believe that McCain will veto any bill with pork in it while he's president if he couldn't even vote no on it while in his present job?

[85suited 0]

Where do those of you (ie: 85, you, cop etc) draw the line? You wouldn't serve on a board you felt you could make a difference with Ayers so what about a rapist or a theif or someone who was involved in a radical organization but didn't blow sh-t up?The answer NO.... If I found out after while serving together I would petition for them to be removed and if that failed, i would resign

[irishguy 14]

Where do those of you (ie: 85, you, cop etc) draw the line? You wouldn't serve on a board you felt you could make a difference with Ayers so what about a rapist or a theif or someone who was involved in a radical organization but didn't blow sh-t up?The answer NO.... If I found out after while serving together I would petition for them to be removed and if that failed, i would resign

While I disagree with you I do respect that you're consistent.