I will be voting for McCain this year. I would have liked Mike Huckabee more, but that’ll wait until 2012. 
This is about William Ayres…Barrack Obama’s “best friend”;
I have not heard Barack Obama denounce William Ayers. Here’s the I’m sorry. His crimes.
I think you should know what the controversy is about and then I’m going to give you a little history on William Ayers and I’ll even bring it up to today because why focus on the 1960s. You’re right. Here’s the ad that Barack Obama does not want you to hear.
"Beyond the speeches how much do you know about Barack Obama? What does he really believe? Consider this. United 93 never hit the capitol on 9/11 but the capitol was bombed 30 years before by an American terrorist group called Weather Underground, that declared war on the U.S., targeting the capitol, the Pentagon, police stations and more. One of the group’s leaders, William Ayers, admits to the bombings, proudly saying later, “We didn’t do enough.” Some members of the group Ayers founded even went on to kill police. But Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as “Respectable and mainstream.” Obama’s political career was launched at Ayers’ home and the two served together on a left wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama? American Issues Project is responsible for the content of this ad.
Stop. Tell me where that’s inaccurate…
Ayers did all that stuff. He did all of it and Barack Obama was not connected by any of that stuff.
The Obama ad is right. Those things happened when Barack Obama was 8. So he’s not connected to any of the Weather Underground stuff.
Right. You’ve got to wonder why they say he’s a buddy.
Why do you announce your campaign at this guy’s house. Now, who is he? Let me give you the history of William Ayers. I gave it to you in a thumbnail. You can find it several places. The most concise comes out of 101 Professors, and this is a book about the worst professors in America, okay? William Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago. Wait a minute. A connection to University of Illinois and Barack Obama. Isn’t this where Barack Obama also has taught some classes and used Solwinski, yet another 1960s radical, another anarchist? Yes. William Ayers, he’s the leader of the Weathermen. It was a group of students for a Democratic society. This is in 1969. They went underground to become America’s very first terrorist cult. The Weathermen have been described by Ayers as “An American red army.” Got it? American communist army. I don’t believe we’ve had other armies in this country. American red army. In 1969 the Weather Underground issued a formal declaration of war on America. And by the way, America is spelled A M E R I KKK A. Sound familiar? Is there anybody else in Barack Obama’s life? Is there anybody else in Barack Obama’s life that has described U.S. of KKK A? They attempted to incite white student radicals to engage in terrorist activities that would provoke a race war in America, spelled with three Ks. White radicals would shed their white skin privilege to aid third world peoples in plundering the ill gotten wealth of the United States. Ayers summed up the ideology as, quote, and I quote William Ayers: Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents. End quote.
I don’t care how long it has been since you said this. That phrase should stay with you as an albatross around your neck for the rest of your life. Now, that again was said in the 1960s. So let’s continue to follow the repentant attitude of Mr. Williams Ayers who again said kill all the rich. Listen to this in the context of the message of Barack Obama. I do not believe Barack Obama wants to kill the rich. I do not believe that Barack Obama would ever say or ever want anyone to kill their parents. That is not Barack Obama. However, listen to Barack Obama’s rhetoric on socialism. Listen to his rhetoric on class warfare. Listen and put this into context with what Obama says about the working man and the best way for the working men, that there has to be a fundamental change of redistribution of wealth. Some to put into Michelle Obama’s words, “Some people are going to have to give up their piece of pie so others can have more.” Same words, just let me rephrase. I don’t agree with their tactics, but I understand their point of view. “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and parts. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.” The Weather Underground managed to bomb the U.S. capitol building, New York City police headquarters, the Pentagon, the National Guard offices in Washington D.C., among many other targets. In 1970, three of the members blew themselves up in a Manhattan townhouse where they were making a bomb they planned to set off at a social dance for young military recruits and their dates at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The FBI was unable to catch Ayers and his other cohorts. They were protected listen carefully. They were protected by the networks of the progressive left. They were protected by the networks of the progressive left, including their expensive lawyers, for five years, until the organizations dissolved through internal conflict.
So for five years the progressive left, with all of their money, protected them using the progressive left’s attorneys until the Weather Underground finally broke apart. They surfaced again in 1980. They received no serious jail time for their crimes, being let off on a technicality that they had been improperly surveilled. So they didn’t really serve any jail time for blowing up anything because the pigs were doing things they shouldn’t have done.
They went back to college where their political comrades now tenured in faculty helped them embark on new careers. Ayers became a professor of early childhood education and a senior university scholar at the University of Illinois Chicago. He has never changed or modified his political views. Professor Ayers has written a series of books about parenting, including to become a teacher, city kids, city teachers. His most recent book, Fugitive Days, is a memoir of his Weathermen exploits. In chaotic text, professor Ayers recounts his life as a 1960s radical, his role as an organizer in the 1969 days of rage riots in Chicago, his tenure as a Weatherman leader, his terrorist campaign across America and in his most recent book, his hatred for America, he says, “What a country. It makes me want to puke.” When interviewed shortly after surfacing from the terrorist underground in a kindergarten where he was already teaching, Ayers comment, reflecting on his fortunes, quote: Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America. What a great country. End quote.
In recounting his bombing crusade, he has said, “There’s something about a good bomb. Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever soon stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind. And they, too, would come undone or get knocked down.” In unbelievable irony he was interviewed. The New York Times ran a profile of him to mark the publication of the book that I just quoted from. That article ran an September 11th, 2001. While the world was watching the World Trade Centers come down, nobody picked up the paper to read the New York Times that day because already the news was old. But this is what he was quoted as saying in the New York Times on September 11th, 2001. Quote: I don’t regret setting bombs. I don’t feel we did enough. End quote.
Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Professor Ayers wrote in his memoir, quote: Everything was absolutely ideal. The sky was blue. The birds were singing and the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them, end quote. When reflecting on whether or not he would use bombs against the U.S. in future, a senior university scholar, Williams Ayers writes, quote: I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.
That is William Ayers. By the way, his book, 1998, A Kind and Just Parent. He argues that we have to overcome our prejudices concerning violent juvenile offenders. In his book that came out in 2001, Zero Tolerance: Resisting the Drive for Punishment in our Schools. Professor Ayers argues against expelling children from classrooms especially if they are black or Latino. In a book that came out in 2004 in teaching towards freedom, moral commitment and ethical action in the classroom, Professor Ayers writes that an unrepented I’m sorry, the unrepentant terrorist writes an evocative lesson about education and humanity must be taught from Pablo Neruda, I don’t know who he is, he is apparently a communist bureaucrat, and Malcolm X. In order to explain what students should be for and what students should be against. Malcolm X and a communist is what our children should be taught so they know what they should be for and against. That’s William Ayers.
Now, you can dismiss this man and say, well, that’s 1960s. No, it’s not. He has never said, “I’ve changed my ways.” He never said, “Well, I did stupid stuff while I was young.” He still today will not rule out the possibility of making war on the United States and using bombs to blow up buildings. Today he won’t do that. And yet Barack Obama launched his campaign at this man’s house. Good God almighty in his seat in heaven, how much more evidence do you need before you question the people standing around Barack Obama.
There he is in his I forgot. He was not in his judgment seat. He’s getting ready to come out of the floor, you know, at Zeus’ pavilion tonight. Why did Barack Obama come out and try everything he can to shut this down? Because there is no evidence that Barack Obama believes in the violence. But let me tell you something. I don’t associate with this man. I don’t serve on a board with this man. I don’t launch anything. Because when I’m around William Ayers and I hear, “Let’s have a launch party,” it might be surface to air missiles. I don’t know. I don’t launch anything at this man’s house. Whether he’s a friend, I don’t know. But he certainly seems to be a political ally of some sort.
Sure! There are lots of people voting for McCain. The head of Exxon/Mobil, and every Washington lobbyist on K Street!
McCain and Palin are not idiots.
Palin isn’t stupid. She’s just incredibly not ready to assume the office of the Presidency of the United States. Winking at the camera and delivering lines you’re told to say won’t help when the world is falling apart. We’ve had a president doing that for the last 8 years and look where it’s got us. She has no understanding herself of any issues. All she can do is recite what she’s told to answer. Why is it that people are happy to have someone incredibly unqualified to lead the world as long as that person has the same views they do? If Paris Hilton was selected by Obama to be his VP – jokes aside – you think anybody in their right mind would assume she was ready?
McCain, for 26 years, has been a Senator with a voting record I’ve strongly disagreed with, but he’s hasn’t been an idiot. But what the entire world has seen over the last year or two though, is that his “honor” has been nothing but a sham. Well, perhaps the best way to put it would be “fair weather honor.” Like a fair-weather friend, it’s served him well when he could comfortably be re-elected in his Republican district in Arizona. But to become president, the entire world has watched him over the last year lie, smear, and do absolutely anything in order to get elected. Politics isn’t a clean sport. It’s dirty, and we all know that. But McCain – the supposed candidate of honor – is the one that has stooped lower than anyone. The very fact that he hired to head his campaign the very same people who smeared him in 2000, speaks volumes. The last few months have showed just how un-honorable the guy has become.
Al-Bob,
And here’s the ad John McCain doesn’t want you to hear:
"How much do we really know about John McCain? One of his best friends was the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 1977, McCain invited the Ayatollah to secret meetings held at his ranch in Sedona, where the two strategized on how to raise world oil prices. Then, in 1980, it was McCain’s idea to have the 52 Americans at the Iranian Emabassy taken hostage. How much do we really know about John McCain?"
That’s the ad John McCain doesn’t want anyone to see.
Thank god I was able to get it out there. Now the world knows the truth!!!
1977???
My stuff is from 1990-2000…
How can you say McCain holds the same ideas and principle from 1970 as he does now…
If I were American and therefore allowed to vote, well, I probably wouldn’t vote anyway. 
But Obama is the lesser of two evils, so to speak. From what I’ve seen, the whole political process that both Obama and McCain have been involved in has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Whenever I try to watch anything to do with the presidential election, there’s balloons everywhere and people saying the same annoying catchphrases over and over. It’s vaguely unnerving that one of these people is going to end up running one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Lizardgirl: Obama has gotten free rides. He was the only editor of the Havard paper who has never submitted an article. Coincidence? I think not. And really. With his experience, do you seriously believe he would have gotten this far if he was white?
Obama being “present” to everything is a mass knowledge, as well as a joke in many speeches. It’s true.
Partially true? Biden plagiarized a British politicians speech. That is a mass knowledge as well.
Obama’s under-the-table deals are true, too. It has been proven. That is a YOU GUESSED IT! Mass knowledge.
Pretty much all of this is mass knowledge, everyone knows it.
People in the other minor parties have no chance of winning. You’re pretty much wasting your time voting for them.
The reason you have more “sources” is because the news media is mostly liberal. They say good things about Obama because they want him to win. My family watches both those and stuff like Fox. Most of my political knowledge is from my dad (I’m TWELVE, for Gods sake!) and he is one of the most informed people I know. 90% of his TV time is the news.
With respect to Rac_Rules’s argument, it sounds like the assertion with this “mass knowledge” is that if enough people believe a rumour, it becomes fact. While that is an established political practice, I can’t say I agree with it.
As far as the media, I’ll agree that most of it is inane, but it’s all biased in some regard, I mean nothing is truly unbiased, but it must be the savviest (and needless to say, most shameless) spin doctors who make the jump to Fox. Given how many people they get to swallow the party line without debate, they must do their jobs right.
One of my favorite Fox creations is the idea that they are a bastion of truth and righteousness in a world of “liberal” (read: factual) media outlets, and their spell on the entranced populace is so powerful that anything from the network is swallowed hook, line and sinker. If I could come up with that kind of advertising, I’d be a rich man.
While that may be true, the points that I made are PROVEN. Not rumors.
And don’t lecture me on Republicans believing rumors. (Palin was in a party that supported Alaska seceding from the US! Palin banned books in a public library! or my personal favorite, Palin ran around with a pillow to hide her daughters pregnancy!) Everyone does it. Personally, I think the Democratic party has the worst track record for this election.
While these will likely be discarded as propaganda by liberal media:
Book censorship:
frontiersman.com/articles/20 … 155484.txt
Granted, it was overblown, but such is politics
Secession:
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch … p-off.html
indeed it’s hard to say where the facts lie, but there’s nobody denying husband Todd Palin’s membership in the AIP
I hadn’t heard the pillow rumour, but I would say it’s neither here nor there. And while personal attacks are another trademark of old-guard politics, it doesn’t really effect anything…Though it’s naive to think Sarah didn’t influence her daughter’s decision to keep the baby. I mean, imagine the backlash.
And I take it back, she was apparantly runner-up for Miss Alaska.
If the rumors in the earlier post are indeed proven, it shouldn’t be hard to find documentation.
You do realize that the members of that party where questioned and they said that she was never a member, right?
Nor did I say she was, though the timing of all this is highly suspect…
I’d still like to see credible substantiation of the things you stated earlier though.
Rac_Rules- Was that whole post directed at me, or generally at others? Because I really don’t know the ins and outs of this presidential election, since I obviously can’t vote in it. All I know is that there seems to have been elements of deception on both sides, and also that McCain being voted in would automatically mean that Sarah Palin gets a position of power, and since I don’t really like her, I personally would prefer if Obama was made president.
But this is an uninformed opinion, so it doesn’t really matter what I say.
Two points.
#1: Al-Bob, with all due respect, I can’t believe you took my post about the “TV ad McCain doesn’t want you to see” seriously (your response: “1977??? My stuff is from 1990-2000. How can you say McCain holds the same ideas and principle from 1970 as he does now…”). I only bring this up not to pick on you personally (I don’t mean to, honestly), but to show how easy it is for [b]anyone to make up any fiction they want, and have at least some people believe it.[/b] Just like the “Obama is a Muslim in Hiding” emails that people I know personally actually believe. So I wrote a totally fictional post (just like the ones coming from the McCain supporters) and claimed McCain was friends with the Ayatollah, and it that it was McCain’s idea to take Americans hostage. (Unlike those who are dead serious to say anything to smear Obama, I actually even hinted at that it was just a joke, by writing “Thank god I was able to get it out there. Now the world knows the truth!!!” with a bunch of “!!!s” at the end). Yet you still took it seriously. Again, I’m not trying to knock you, I’m pointing out how easy it is for people to believe anything someone says because most people don’t bother to actually look up the truth. Anyone looking at my fake post who took 30 seconds to research it would know it was totally false. But so many people don’t take that 30 seconds. And then the same people later complain that their politicians are such schmucks.
#2: And on that same topic, it appears that McCain will now “officially” go over-the-top negative in an attempt to turn his losing tide. Now I will be totally honest and say that if it was Obama losing, he would turn negative too (though his negative ads have been issue-based, such as negative ads about how McCain has been supported by lobbyists, his voting record, etc), but many of McCain’s ads have been gutter smears on Obama. Now the McCain camp has said they’re going to go full-force negative in their smear attacks against Obama. They know it’s the only way they have a hope of winning in a month, by trying to turn people’s focus away from the issues (ie, the economy) and smear him with everything they can (made up or not). This as much as admitted from the McCain camp themselves. Get ready for 30 days of all-smear, all-the-time from the “honorable” McCain. Slash, smear, tear-down, and burn. Let’s see if the American people fall for it or are actually smart enough to open their eyes this time. Get ready.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … ews&sub=AR
#3: And here’s one last thing. It’s well-known that 74.8% of all quoted statistics are completely made up.
I’ll admit, I don’t have an exact internet or news resource. But here is the resource I have: A 51 year old PHD acquired man who spends most of his time at home watching News 4, CNN, and Fox (So he gets both sides), political news websites looking up information, and has watched both the Democratic and Republican convention and both debates.
Can’t argue with that logic.
(And no, I am not exaggerating. Now you know where I got my obsessiveness on politics from)
And I want to point out the slyness in negative criticism in Obama ads. One of his ads makes it seem that McCain does not support women getting equal pay because he hates women or something. Well, my mom explained the Republican side, and she said that women often take time off from collage and work to have kids and family life, while men do not always do that. She, for example, works part time and my dad works full time. If they where the same level (she is above him) she would be payed less, since she only works part time, correct? Well, that bill McCain did no support stated otherwise.
Point is, the ads are very good at twisting he facts around.
Well, then it’s not really your opinion is it? It’s your Dad’s…
Again, I’d ask for proof, but…
Why should a woman who does the same job, at the same level of performance, and assuming both are full time, get paid less than a man? Likewise a handicapped person, a homosexual or member of a minority. That justification doesn’t make jibe.
However, 5 minutes of research later, one can see that McCain’s opposition was to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act “reasserting Congress’ original intent in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and allowing employees to file charges of pay discrimination within 180 days of the last received pay check affected by the discrimination.”
[url]http://www.vis.org/toolbox/VoteDetail.aspx?vid=9219[/url]
The opposing view is not tacit promotion of a discrepancy, but rather the dissolution of the 180 day time frame, shortening it considerably.
Also, what Rachel said.
True, but my families political talks usually go like this:
Dad talks about something he heard on the news.
I ask him what the other side thinks.
Dad tells me.
Emily (more-liberal sister) says what she thinks.
Mom says what she thinks
Dad questions Emily.
Emily says her case.
Dad questions her more.
Emily gets mad.
Dad gets mad.
I don’t have to do the dishes.
Alright, the last part was exaggerated. But they do get mad at each other at some point, usually. So I get both opinions. I also hear from my very liberal sister Erica, so I do get a good balance of opinions.
3 points
1-How come you can post a thread that is purposfully untrue?? At 15 it is very hard to control my temper (even though i do very well on forums) WHen you posted your 1970 post my first reaction was to denounce it. Did i belive it…maybe i found it hard to believe. Your example was…really poor only becuase it was entirely false and only made me backlash at it. If your goal is to show how easy it is to eblieve untrue posts stick to 1990-2000 stories. Those will be recieved with creditability and possible truth. Whereas if you use 1970 it will be a load of rubbish. Is my story wrong…right here
upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/05/ … 223245446/
here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers
fool.com/investing/dividends … ddie-.aspx
Here’s one on Freddie mac fanny mae…why does barrack have these guys as his financial officers…why…even clinton had them…what has happened to heir business’s
2-Mudthrowing is what our political dumbguys do all day…do i say McCain throws better…i don’t care…they could both throw mud at each other all the live long day…that is what washington does all day. throw mud in republicans and democrats (and independants)…do i care NO!
3-My source is secure and trustworthy…from the wall street journel is where most of my stories come from…so if you don’t like them…not my problem.
(sorry if this is a little personal or mudthrowing like…i’ve had a rough vacation)
Just got back too…from Flagstaff (three night stay) had pretty bad business with dad so everything is a little off.
joesha, while it is the wall street journal, Al-Bob has quite a point.
Even official news companies often choose sides and post rather biased articles. For example, you can’t always trust CNN for information on Republican candidates and you can’t always trust Fox on information about Democratic candidates.