Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths

[greenpartyaz]

The New York Times > Log In

 

[DavidS]

The New York Times > Log In

Thank you for the link. I know for 100% certainty that Ayres has had ZERO influence over Obama.

Little Influence Seen

Mr. Obama’s friends said that history was utterly irrelevant to judging the candidate, because Mr. Ayers was never a significant influence on him. Even some conservatives who know Mr. Obama said that if he was drawn to Ayers-style radicalism, he hid it well.

“I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as “a pragmatic liberal” whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left.

Some 15 years later, left-leaning backers of Mr. Obama have the same complaint. “We’re fully for Obama, but we disagree with some of his stands,” said Tom Hayden, the 1960s activist and former California legislator, who helped organize Progressives for Obama. His group opposes the candidate’s call for sending more troops to Afghanistan, for instance, “because we think it’s a quagmire just like Iraq,” he said. “A lot of our work is trying to win over progressives who think Obama is too conservative.”

Mr. Hayden, 68, said he has known Mr. Ayers for 45 years and was on the other side of the split in the radical antiwar movement that led Mr. Ayers and others to form the Weathermen. But Mr. Hayden said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as “typical campaign shenanigans.”

“If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”

 

[Missourian]

Says The New Obama Times.

 

[DavidS]

Says The New Obama Times.

Of course. Dis-credit the source if it doesn't say anything good about the guy you're voting for. Tried and true old fashioned conservative politics.

 

[Missourian]

Of course. Dis-credit the source if it doesn't say anything good about the guy you're voting for. Tried and true old fashioned conservative politics.

I'll remember that the next time I post a Fox News link. I'll be watching for all those conservatives discrediting the source. Thanks for the heads up.




.

 

[DavidS]

I'll remember that the next time I post a Fox News link. I'll be watching for all those conservatives discrediting the source. Thanks for the heads up.
.

Are you serious? You just proved my point. If a news source says something you don't agree with, you dis-credit it ergo if a news source says something you DO agree with, then you credit it! Come on, man! Follow along here!

 

[Missourian]

Are you serious? You just proved my point. If a news source says something you don't agree with, you dis-credit it ergo if a news source says something you DO agree with, then you credit it! Come on, man! Follow along here!

I think you're agreeing with me in a liberal pretzel-esque manner.

 

[DavidS]

I think you're agreeing with me in a liberal pretzel-esque manner.

No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. Am I being too complicated for you, Joe Six Pack?

Let me explain it to you as if we were in 3rd grade.

You will agree with anything that validates your opinion, no matter how wrong it really is.

You will disagree with anything that disagrees with your opinion, no matter how right it really is.

If the New York Times says the color of its ink is black, you will disagree with it because you think it's blue. Even though everyone else out there knows it's black, you'll disagree with it and bash the paper because your opinion and the facts don't actually align.

Still too complicated?

If I say the title of this message board is "US Message Board" that is a fact. If the New York Times says there is no link between Ayres and Obama other than just circumstantial, that is a fact. Whether or not you agree with the facts, is irrelevant. They are still facts. You choose to ignore facts and believe whatever you wish, hey free country, go for it. But you'll be voting FOR someone even though they're lying to you. When McCain says Obama and Ayres are friends and Obama is hanging around with terrorists, that is NOT a fact. Do you care if McCain lies to you? Does that coincide with your conservative values?

 

[jreeves]

No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. Am I being too complicated for you, Joe Six Pack?

Let me explain it to you as if we were in 3rd grade.

You will agree with anything that validates your opinion, no matter how wrong it really is.

You will disagree with anything that disagrees with your opinion, no matter how right it really is.

If the New York Times says the color of its ink is black, you will disagree with it because you think it's blue. Even though everyone else out there knows it's black, you'll disagree with it and bash the paper because your opinion and the facts don't actually align.

Still too complicated?

If I say the title of this message board is "US Message Board" that is a fact. If the New York Times says there is no link between Ayres and Obama other than just circumstantial, that is a fact. Whether or not you agree with the facts, is irrelevant. They are still facts. You choose to ignore facts and believe whatever you wish, hey free country, go for it. But you'll be voting FOR someone even though they're lying to you. When McCain says Obama and Ayres are friends and Obama is hanging around with terrorists, that is NOT a fact. Do you care if McCain lies to you? Does that coincide with your conservative values?

Then you will understand why some are skeptical of campaign spokespeople, surrogates and unnamed sources all of which is the major basis of this article....

 

[Missourian]

No, I'm not agreeing with you at all. Am I being too complicated for you, Joe Six Pack?

Let me explain it to you as if we were in 3rd grade.

You will agree with anything that validates your opinion, no matter how wrong it really is.

You will disagree with anything that disagrees with your opinion, no matter how right it really is.

If the New York Times says the color of its ink is black, you will disagree with it because you think it's blue. Even though everyone else out there knows it's black, you'll disagree with it and bash the paper because your opinion and the facts don't actually align.

Still too complicated?

Is this what you mean by attacking the source when you don't agree with them? I appreciate the object lesson. I guess it's not restricted to conservatives after all.

If I say the title of this message board is "US Message Board" that is a fact. If the New York Times says there is no link between Ayres and Obama other than just circumstantial, that is a fact. Whether or not you agree with the facts, is irrelevant. They are still facts. You choose to ignore facts and believe whatever you wish, hey free country, go for it.

From the article:

"But the two men do not appear to have been close."

Not a fact, it is an opinion.

"Obama campaign aides said the Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate."

Also not a fact, his campaign said? Come on.

"In the stark presentation of a 30-second advertisement or a television clip, Mr. Obama’s connections with a man who once bombed buildings and who is unapologetic about it may seem puzzling."

May seem puzzling? Now there's the understatement of the century.

"In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year."

Several un-named people said ? Sorry, no facts here.

"It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor."

Just a little harmless gathering where Obama got his political start that just happened to be held at the terrorists house.

"In 1997, after Mr. Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Mr. Ayers, “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” which Mr. Obama called “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system.” In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign."

Wow, it's a fact! How did that get in there. No weasel words and no unnamed sources. Incredible.

"In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times during those three years but declined to make public the minutes, saying they wanted members to be candid in assessing people and organizations applying for grants."

No minutes? Now there's transparency if I ever saw it. There may have even been a fact or two in those minute. Guess we'll never know.

"Mr. Obama’s friends said that history was utterly irrelevant to judging the candidate, because Mr. Ayers was never a significant influence on him. Even some conservatives who know Mr. Obama said that if he was drawn to Ayers-style radicalism, he hid it well."

Well thanks "Mr. Obama's nameless friends" for supplying us with another non-fact.

"“If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”."

Appreciate your opinion Mr. Hayden.



Well DavidS, I hope you are more successful in your search for facts elsewhere, because this "article" is nearly devoid of them.

But I'm sure a smart fella such as yourself, with all that learnin' and all, saw right thru this here sham of an article, and were only lookin' to help this poor Missourah hillbilly fetch up some learnin' of his own, and I do rightly appreciate it.



.