[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Judy wrote: Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. So the question is, whether Khalidi acted as a PLO spokesman while the PLO was widely recognized as a terrorist organization. If so, why would Obama be wanting to go to a party with Khalidi? It doesn't look good to be pals with terrorists, and then try to cover it up. Was Rashid Khalidi a PLO spokesman or director of its press agency in Beirut back in 1982? Martin Kramer sets the record straight: 'Khalidi of the PLO'Posted by Martin Kramer Sandbox, Thursday, 30 October 2008 http://sandbox.blog-city.com/khalidi_of_the_plo.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. Judy wrote: I agree, but I don't think it excuses Obama's collaboration with Ayers. Apparently what we have here are two very mixed up political pundits! One thinks the John McCain set babies by the thousands on fire in Vietnam; the other thinks that the Vietnam conflict was wrong, yet this guy Kerry, who volunteered to fight in Vietnam, is a sitting Senator and was the Democratic Party's choice to run for the office of U.S. President. Go figure. Both of these assertions about Kerry, as Willytex knows, are bald-faced, slanderous lies. From: Judy Stein Subject: Re: OT: John Kerry joined the Naval Reserve Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Thurs, Sep 2 2004 http://tinyurl.com/6akcfu
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Not that the mentally deranged or LIVs care, but here is a good summary of the khalid nonsense by the washington post: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. This is a case of guilt by association gone haywire. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have had extensive dealings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is much more closely identified with the PLO than Rashidi ever was. Verdict: the McCain camp has wildly exaggerated the significance of the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi triangle.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that the mentally deranged or LIVs care, but here is a good summary of the khalid nonsense by the washington post: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. This is a case of guilt by association gone haywire. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have had extensive dealings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is much more closely identified with the PLO than Rashidi ever was. Verdict: the McCain camp has wildly exaggerated the significance of the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi triangle. Here's Keith Olbermann's snarky take on it: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-campaign-comment-rank-hypoc http://tinyurl.com/6c9rof
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s%2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29%2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co-founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to-khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!! http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/30/protest-at-the-la-times/
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies is a member of the CIPE Reform Network. In 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000 the Center received grants from the NED (via CIPE). Similarly in 1995 they received a NED grant via the Jerusalem Fund. [1] The Center for Palestine Research and Studies (CPRS) was founded in March 1993 in response to the need for active Palestinian scholarship on issues related to Palestine. The Center is an independent academic research and policy analysis institution seeking to fully explore and understand new local and regional development and assess their impact on the Palestinians. Because CPRS is independent of political factions, it is in a unique position of being able to serve as a forum for meetings of Palestinian and international researchers from various political backgrounds and ideologies in a free academic and professional atmosphere. The Center for Palestinian Research and Studies acts as an independent think tank for Palestinian policy and strategy community. It seeks to produce research that is objective and based on rigorous and sound methodology. The Center does not adopt political positions other than advocating free, democratic exchange and expression. It is fully committed to information exchange and to publishing research according to professional standards. CPRS encourages outstanding scholars in Palestinian political, strategic, and economic issues to actively participate in the current dialogue regarding the formulation of Palestinian priorities and options and to gather a range of perspectives. http://tinyurl.com/56uw7d
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
I usually learn something from an attack on Obama's ideas. But I'm hitting a dead end on this attack. What is the big picture here? Republicans are using these associations to create fear of Obama, but when McCain is asked outright if he believes Obama hates America he backs down. So the talking point is to create a vague fear phrased in a folksy enough way that there is some deniability. (Palin carefully says Obabma pals around with terrorists, not that he consorts with them.) OK, dirty politics as usual by a campaign that has never had enough detailed ideas to carry their campaign. But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? So are you just doing the whole Republican (I know you have said you don't self-identify as Republican) create a bad feeling about a candidate by guilt by association routine. Are you on board with their agenda? Or are you making a different point? Are you saying that Obama is secretly a terrorist who hates America, and plans to use his presidency to hurt our country? Time to shit of get off the pot. What is your point? Do you believe that Obama was paling around with Ayers because they could trade bomb recipes? Are you saying that you think Obama is a terrorist? WTF? The Republican agenda is clear. Yours is not. Care to clarify? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s%2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29%2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co-founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to-khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!! http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/30/protest-at-the-la-times/
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
it is just the dying gasp of opposition against the next President of the USA, Barack Hussein Obama. he is obviously no more a terrorist than those who proclaim him to be. people always resist change, and this time the change is a substantial one; someone on the side of the masses instead of the few. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I usually learn something from an attack on Obama's ideas. But I'm hitting a dead end on this attack. What is the big picture here? Republicans are using these associations to create fear of Obama, but when McCain is asked outright if he believes Obama hates America he backs down. So the talking point is to create a vague fear phrased in a folksy enough way that there is some deniability. (Palin carefully says Obabma pals around with terrorists, not that he consorts with them.) OK, dirty politics as usual by a campaign that has never had enough detailed ideas to carry their campaign. But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? So are you just doing the whole Republican (I know you have said you don't self-identify as Republican) create a bad feeling about a candidate by guilt by association routine. Are you on board with their agenda? Or are you making a different point? Are you saying that Obama is secretly a terrorist who hates America, and plans to use his presidency to hurt our country? Time to shit of get off the pot. What is your point? Do you believe that Obama was paling around with Ayers because they could trade bomb recipes? Are you saying that you think Obama is a terrorist? WTF? The Republican agenda is clear. Yours is not. Care to clarify? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox- arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s% 2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29% 2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co- founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to- khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s%2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29%2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co-founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to-khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!! http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/30/protest-at-the-la-times/ Personally, I have more faith in the intellectual integrity of Glenn Greewald than Whirled Nut Daily or Michelle Malkin. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/neocons/index.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. The third point, from a Republican perspective, is that Ayers is not just somebody working for the betterment of education; he's working for what *he* considers the betterment of education, which right- wingers find appalling because it involves, they claim, the indoctrination of students with left- wing ideas. I'm *not* in sympathy with this complaint; I think it would be all to the better if students were exposed to left-wing ideas, since I'm a left-winger myself. But if one is a right-winger, it's a reasonable objection to Obama's partnership with Ayers in terms of educational theory and practice. The notion that Obama's association with Ayers means he's somehow in sympathy with terrorism is, of course, totally absurd, designed to appeal to nonthinkers. But there are also entirely legitimate objections.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. that is completely absurd, and certainly does not reflect the christian values of forgiveness, compassion and self-reflection. it is a really ugly spin. what is the next step? we draw up a list of each of the major candidates' associations from the time they reached 18 'til now, match each association against criteria that define each association as palling around or not, and then take a microscope to each of the people's lives deemed to be palling around with the candidate in question? pardon me, but what a load of bullshit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, but i am sure you get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
You laid out the different positions pretty fairly. Given that the president of the United States has to work with the world's despots and dictators to advance the agenda of the US, I think that Obama's ability to work on a specific project with a guy with a past like Ayers is an asset. The question is, does he condemn the guy's past activities right? That doesn't mean he should shun the guy who may be helpful in a current project that has nothing to do with his past. Let's say a guy goes to jail for murder. If he does his time and gets out, should every politician shun him forever on any positive project he works on for the rest of his life? No politician makes it through this gauntlet. Obama hasn't chosen to go this route in attacking Mccain, but he certainly could. Our past president's can't even pass this test with their support for Saddham and Osama when it served our country's purpose. Before it didn't. Our last president don't just pal around with dictators, he claimed to see their soul. Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia, where the 9-11 hijackers came from, is a vivid image of what president's have to do to get things done in the world. So I guess I am concluding that harboring a grudge about someone's past may be a tidy way to live for people outside public office, but it isn't gunna be that easy for anyone with real power. I am confident that Obama had these associations for the right and not the wrong reasons. I have no problem with the church he went to. (aside from the mock cannibalistic ritual which is the same problem I have with all churches!) It was a black church and raised black issue with a black perspective. OK, I guess that is because Obama IS black. If Obama gets elected, I hope he continues to work with everyone around him on positive projects to help our country. If he brings out the best in a guy who was a past radical, that seems like a plus. I am comfortable that Obama didn't view his association as important, but that he views the work they did together as having value. The next president of the US is going to have to face Pakistan, Iran and plenty of countries whose populations have a lot of American haters. I hope he can bring out the best from paling around with them to help turn our relationships around. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. The third point, from a Republican perspective, is that Ayers is not just somebody working for the betterment of education; he's working for what *he* considers the betterment of education, which right- wingers find appalling because it involves, they claim, the indoctrination of students with left- wing ideas. I'm *not* in sympathy with this complaint; I think it would be all to the better if students were exposed to left-wing ideas, since I'm a left-winger myself. But if one is a right-winger, it's a reasonable objection to Obama's partnership with Ayers in terms of educational theory and practice. The notion that Obama's association with Ayers means he's somehow in sympathy with terrorism is, of course, totally absurd, designed to appeal to nonthinkers. But there are also entirely legitimate objections.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, Yes, you were. You quoted my remarks and my agreement with the views I outlined. Then you said, The way these accusations are ALWAYS framed... (emphasis added). But what you went on to claim wasn't how I had framed the accusations at all. Have some self-respect, ed11, and take responsibility for your own statements. but i am sure you get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not. Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. that is completely absurd, and certainly does not reflect the christian values of forgiveness, compassion and self-reflection. it is a really ugly spin. what is the next step? we draw up a list of each of the major candidates' associations from the time they reached 18 'til now, match each association against criteria that define each association as palling around or not, and then take a microscope to each of the people's lives deemed to be palling around with the candidate in question? pardon me, but what a load of bullshit. As a point of passing historical interest, from the token Cathar freak on this forum, this load of bullshit was first popularized by a man named Domenico Guzman, and the brotherhood of Dominican monks he founded, otherwise known as the Office Of The Holy Inquisition. All trials held by the Inquisition were pretty much a foregone conclusion; if you were called before the Inquisition, you were guilty. So the *point* of the trials was not to punish the guilty. It was to provide a public forum as, tortured into doing whatever they were told to do, the heretics named names. That is, they were made to confess the names of pretty much everyone they knew or had ever known. And the reason for extracting these names was to inspire terror in the general population, because the rule of law under the Inquisition was that if you knew a person who had been condemned as a heretic, you were a heretic, too. Done deal. It didn't even matter if you had just talked to him on the street, you were as guilty as he was, and as liable to be sent to the stake. It was a brilliant form of mindfuck then, and it is now. The purpose of this tactic was to make the population afraid to even talk with folks who might have heretical ideas. Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think. Nicely put! That was an interesting connection with techniques from the inquisition Turq. The war on terror has taken on so many qualities from that dark past hasn't it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. that is completely absurd, and certainly does not reflect the christian values of forgiveness, compassion and self-reflection. it is a really ugly spin. what is the next step? we draw up a list of each of the major candidates' associations from the time they reached 18 'til now, match each association against criteria that define each association as palling around or not, and then take a microscope to each of the people's lives deemed to be palling around with the candidate in question? pardon me, but what a load of bullshit. As a point of passing historical interest, from the token Cathar freak on this forum, this load of bullshit was first popularized by a man named Domenico Guzman, and the brotherhood of Dominican monks he founded, otherwise known as the Office Of The Holy Inquisition. All trials held by the Inquisition were pretty much a foregone conclusion; if you were called before the Inquisition, you were guilty. So the *point* of the trials was not to punish the guilty. It was to provide a public forum as, tortured into doing whatever they were told to do, the heretics named names. That is, they were made to confess the names of pretty much everyone they knew or had ever known. And the reason for extracting these names was to inspire terror in the general population, because the rule of law under the Inquisition was that if you knew a person who had been condemned as a heretic, you were a heretic, too. Done deal. It didn't even matter if you had just talked to him on the street, you were as guilty as he was, and as liable to be sent to the stake. It was a brilliant form of mindfuck then, and it is now. The purpose of this tactic was to make the population afraid to even talk with folks who might have heretical ideas. Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Turq wrote: I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. Yeah, that's the ticket - sit down with Osama bin Laden and 'talk things over'. Then you would be guilty by association! You're not even making any sense, Turq.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think. Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. This is the fellow who boasts repeatedly of not talking to me or even reading my posts and has urged other readers over and over not to do so either.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think. Curtis wrote: That was an interesting connection with techniques from the inquisition Turq. The war on terror has taken on so many qualities from that dark past hasn't it? Are you suggesting that the Cathars were terrorists?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You laid out the different positions pretty fairly. Given that the president of the United States has to work with the world's despots and dictators to advance the agenda of the US, I think that Obama's ability to work on a specific project with a guy with a past like Ayers is an asset. The question is, does he condemn the guy's past activities right? That doesn't mean he should shun the guy who may be helpful in a current project that has nothing to do with his past. That's debatable, Curtis, and it really isn't parallel to a president's dealings with bad foreign leaders. Remember that Ayers and Dohrn held a fundraiser for Obama at their home when he was running for Illinois Senate. Let's say a guy goes to jail for murder. If he does his time and gets out, should every politician shun him forever on any positive project he works on for the rest of his life? Bad analogy. If the guy had murdered some drug dealer or his business partner or even his wife, maybe not. But Ayers wanted to bring down the U.S. government using terrorism as a means. No politician makes it through this gauntlet. Obama hasn't chosen to go this route in attacking Mccain, but he certainly could. Yes, he could. But that doesn't exonerate Obama. And some politicians are a lot cleaner in this regard than Obama is (not McCain, but others). snip So I guess I am concluding that harboring a grudge about someone's past may be a tidy way to live for people outside public office, but it isn't gunna be that easy for anyone with real power. I don't think harboring a grudge is the appropriate phrase here, for either situation; and again, I think the situations are very different. I am confident that Obama had these associations for the right and not the wrong reasons. I have no problem with the church he went to. (aside from the mock cannibalistic ritual which is the same problem I have with all churches!) It was a black church and raised black issue with a black perspective. OK, I guess that is because Obama IS black. I don't have a problem with his church either. I have a problem with his judgment in not realizing how it would be used against him if he ran for president; and I have a problem with the way he dealt with it when it became a public controversy. If Obama gets elected, I hope he continues to work with everyone around him on positive projects to help our country. If he brings out the best in a guy who was a past radical, that seems like a plus. Your best may be someone else's worst. As I said, as a leftist, I'd be only too happy to see Ayers's educational policies implemented. But those on the right have a legitimate gripe about them, and see them as directly connected to Ayers's past anti-government activities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
snip snip I don't have a problem with his church either. I have a problem with his judgment in not realizing how it would be used against him if he ran for president; and I have a problem with the way he dealt with it when it became a public controversy. So he was quite politically calculating enough? My guess is that Obama went to church for his kids and sat there daydreaming about conquering the world and becoming president the whole time. Like Bill Mahar, I hope he is lying about being a real Christian. When it came out he played politics and was politically calculating. Imagine that. If Obama gets elected, I hope he continues to work with everyone around him on positive projects to help our country. If he brings out the best in a guy who was a past radical, that seems like a plus. Your best may be someone else's worst. As I said, as a leftist, I'd be only too happy to see Ayers's educational policies implemented. But those on the right have a legitimate gripe about them, and see them as directly connected to Ayers's past anti-government activities. I think you laid out the Republican's fears accurately. I don't know enough about Ayer's educational policies to have an opinion. But I do have an opinion about the people Ayers was fighting against who were acting against our best interest in South East Asia. They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. They were destroying our country and any claim we could have to a higher ground than the communists. They did much more to ruin the kind of America that I want to live in then the Weather Underground, as misguided in their actions as I believe they were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, Yes, you were. You quoted my remarks and my agreement with the views I outlined. Then you said, The way these accusations are ALWAYS framed... (emphasis added). But what you went on to claim wasn't how I had framed the accusations at all. Have some self-respect, ed11, and take responsibility for your own statements. but i am sure you get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not. Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there. motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected. now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- But I do have an opinion about the people Ayers was fighting against who were acting against our best interest in South East Asia. They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. They were destroying our country and any claim we could have to a higher ground than the communists. They did much more to ruin the kind of America that I want to live in then the Weather Underground, as misguided in their actions as I believe they were. so on the one hand is this tenuous at best association between one candidate and a in-his-college-days radical. on the other hand is a doofus who not only believed in blowing people to bits with his warplane during the vietnam war- not members of the establshment as bill ayers wanted to go after (but never did...), but anyone unfortunate enough to have an arm, leg or head blown off by the bombs on his fighter bomber. the doofus wasn't competent enough to keep the plane he flew in the air, ended up being a pow, got out and now supports the same tactics of bloodshed and murder that he actively participated in 40 years ago. and, get this, people want to go after the first guy instead of the killer doofus, whom they call a hero. does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I don't have a problem with his church either. I have a problem with his judgment in not realizing how it would be used against him if he ran for president; and I have a problem with the way he dealt with it when it became a public controversy. So he was quite politically calculating enough? (I think you wanted a not in there, right?) Remember, this is the fellow you expect to see sitting across the table from the bad guys engaging in super- delicate negotations that could affect the welfare of the whole world. It's crucially important for such a person to be able to accurately foresee the effects of what he says and does. My guess is that Obama went to church for his kids and sat there daydreaming about conquering the world and becoming president the whole time. Sorry, but he quotes Wright and praises him repeatedly in his books. The book title Audacity of Hope was taken from one of Wright's sermons. So he was most definitely paying attention. snip But I do have an opinion about the people Ayers was fighting against who were acting against our best interest in South East Asia. They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. They were destroying our country and any claim we could have to a higher ground than the communists. They did much more to ruin the kind of America that I want to live in then the Weather Underground, as misguided in their actions as I believe they were. I agree, but I don't think it excuses Obama's collaboration with Ayers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there. motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected. Thank you. now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached? OK, let me move them down here: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. I think that's *sometimes* the attitude, but by no means always. I also think there's a range of possibility in terms of meeting standards. No public figure is going to meet an absolute standard, but some come closer to it than others, in terms of the nature of their associations and the degree to which the associations seem repellent. And I think Obama tends to *invite* this kind of criticism because he really does present himself as holier-than-thou, spotless and untouchable. Plus which, some of his repellent associations have been quite recent, such as with the homophobic reformed gay Donnie McClurkin. Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. So I think there's some truth to your premise and conclusions, but the situation isn't nearly as cut- and-dried as you make it sound.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there. motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected. Thank you. now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached? OK, let me move them down here: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. I think that's *sometimes* the attitude, but by no means always. I also think there's a range of possibility in terms of meeting standards. No public figure is going to meet an absolute standard, but some come closer to it than others, in terms of the nature of their associations and the degree to which the associations seem repellent. And I think Obama tends to *invite* this kind of criticism because he really does present himself as holier-than-thou, spotless and untouchable. Plus which, some of his repellent associations have been quite recent, such as with the homophobic reformed gay Donnie McClurkin. Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. So I think there's some truth to your premise and conclusions, but the situation isn't nearly as cut- and-dried as you make it sound. thanks for answering. as to this holier than thou perception of obama, i'm just not seeing it. he protects and crafts his public image, sure, but i don't get the whole better than anybody else attitude from him. i do on the other hand think he is one of the few presidents we have had who is a good fit for the times; able to truly lead instead of just making things worse for most of us. to excuse any of this stuff being thrown at him as somehow due to his actions i think gives those seeking to slander him a free pass.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The notion that Obama's association with Ayers means he's somehow in sympathy with terrorism is, of course, totally absurd, designed to appeal to nonthinkers. But there are also entirely legitimate objections. It doesn't make as good a sound-bite as the terrorist angle, however. And there are no doubt many leftist educators that OBama associates with, but only one is a former 60's radical (as far as I know), so Ayers gets pushed. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. \Seemed a valid point to me too, Judy. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at the whole of your rhetoric these past few months., Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: You laid out the different positions pretty fairly. Given that the president of the United States has to work with the world's despots and dictators to advance the agenda of the US, I think that Obama's ability to work on a specific project with a guy with a past like Ayers is an asset. The question is, does he condemn the guy's past activities right? That doesn't mean he should shun the guy who may be helpful in a current project that has nothing to do with his past. That's debatable, Curtis, and it really isn't parallel to a president's dealings with bad foreign leaders. Remember that Ayers and Dohrn held a fundraiser for Obama at their home when he was running for Illinois Senate. Are you sure that's the best way to characterize that meeting? According to what I have read, Ayers has donated $200 total to Obama campaigns over the last 15 years. That hardly seems like an amount a person hosting a fund-raiser would contribute. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: snip i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. I think that's *sometimes* the attitude, but by no means always. I also think there's a range of possibility in terms of meeting standards. No public figure is going to meet an absolute standard, but some come closer to it than others, in terms of the nature of their associations and the degree to which the associations seem repellent. And I think Obama tends to *invite* this kind of criticism because he really does present himself as holier-than-thou, spotless and untouchable. Plus which, some of his repellent associations have been quite recent, such as with the homophobic reformed gay Donnie McClurkin. Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. So I think there's some truth to your premise and conclusions, but the situation isn't nearly as cut- and-dried as you make it sound. thanks for answering. as to this holier than thou perception of obama, i'm just not seeing it. he protects and crafts his public image, sure, but i don't get the whole better than anybody else attitude from him. OK. I can't account for what you see and don't see. But this is a big reason why some of us find him, shall we say, less than appealing. i do on the other hand think he is one of the few presidents we have had who is a good fit for the times; able to truly lead instead of just making things worse for most of us. God knows, I hope you're right. But I'm not optimistic. to excuse any of this stuff being thrown at him as somehow due to his actions i think gives those seeking to slander him a free pass. Not sure where you've seen me or anybody else suggesting it was OK to tell falsehoods about him. Let's change slander to criticism, OK? Because that's what the stuff I was talking about is: to excuse any of this stuff being thrown at him as somehow due to his actions i think gives those seeking to criticize him a free pass. Doesn't make quite so much sense now, does it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. Do you think McCain has been straightforward and forthcoming from the get go about the numerous donations totaling over $ half million given to Khalid by the Intl Republican Institute while he chaired it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. Do you think McCain has been straightforward and forthcoming from the get go about the numerous donations totaling over $ half million given to Khalid by the Intl Republican Institute while he chaired it? Are you saying that if McCain hasn't been straightforward and forthcoming, then it's OK for Obama not to be straightforward and forthcoming?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: snip i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. \Seemed a valid point to me too, Judy. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at the whole of your rhetoric these past few months. Mm-hm. Since you're the one making (or seconding) the accusation, perhaps you should be the one to provide the evidence. As Barry would say, I'll wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip That's debatable, Curtis, and it really isn't parallel to a president's dealings with bad foreign leaders. Remember that Ayers and Dohrn held a fundraiser for Obama at their home when he was running for Illinois Senate. Are you sure that's the best way to characterize that meeting? According to what I have read, Ayers has donated $200 total to Obama campaigns over the last 15 years. That hardly seems like an amount a person hosting a fund-raiser would contribute. Perhaps the hospitality--organizing and hosting the fundraiser--was part of Ayers's contribution. That's one way to do it if you're not flush with cash but have connections with people who do. (And remember, this was a run for state senate, so huge sums weren't involved.) Most accounts I've seen say it was a fundraiser. But even if it was just to introduce Obama to influential people who could help his campaign, it doesn't change the point, which is that Obama's association with Ayers isn't parallel to a president negotiating with hostile foreign leaders (which is what Curtis was suggesting).
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: snip i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. \Seemed a valid point to me too, Judy. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at the whole of your rhetoric these past few months. Mm-hm. Since you're the one making (or seconding) the accusation, perhaps you should be the one to provide the evidence. As Barry would say, I'll wait. The evidence? My own gut-level feeling about your rhetoric, taken as-a-whole. Beyond that? I've got nothing. Lawson
