VPILF

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:32 pm

How would you characterize his relationship with Ayers? It appears that they have a personal and professional relationship. I think many people would say, myself included, that he is not mindful of the company he keeps. And that's fair game for a debate on judgment.

I've seen a lot worse stuff aimed at Palin, particularly after her nomination when the polls shifted and Democrats panicked. You vocalized much of it here on these forums.

Polling is at the heart of the problem. It's making a sport out of our politics. By having daily tracking polls, candidates continually tweak and change and evolve their message to try and get traction. It's absurd. Do we need to know who's "winning" the campaign?

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:17 pm

Obama was one of 9 board members of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a group that worked for Welfare reform, affordable housing and tax policy reform. Yup, hateful stuff indeed. Does anyone know the other 7 members of that board and how long Ayers and Obama were there at the same time?

Other than going to Ayers' home as part of a gathering to hear about Alice Palmer stepping down from the Senate and later getting a paltry $200 donation from Ayers, I haven't seen anything to suggest the was "palling around with terrorists". Weak cheese at best.

Kate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:52 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:How would you characterize his relationship with Ayers?

I would characterize it as he is an acquaintance with a colorful background who was (and still is IMO) presumed to be an upstanding citizen now, given that he works as a tenured professor and is involved in multiple community projects aimed at helping inner city youth. Remember, in academia we have something called "Academic Freedoms" which means we can state any opinions we want without fear of recrimination (in theory). It allows us to push the envelope regarding thinking and understanding our world.

Anyway, if you really are a Christian, you have to believe in the concepts of absolution and redemption, right? Once a toilet blower-uper is not always a toilet blower-uper. Also realize he took those actions 40 years ago in protest to a horrible war, and no one got hurt. He wasn't even personally involved in the Pentagon toilet explosions, so the latest lie that Obama and Osama both have friends who attacked the Pentagon is absolutely outrageous and false. It's also helping to contribute to the GOP losing elections all over the country as they alienate the moderate middle, so I guess that is your punishment.

All the negative stuff said about Sarah Palin here has been true. She *is* a Creationist who wants to ban books and believes in witchcraft and the End of Days and who abused her authority as governor to pursue a family vendetta. And she is woefully ignorant of the world. Of course, that pretty much describes the Republican base in general, so they shouldn't see it as an insult.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:08 pm

Morbidkate raises a point I'd like to see made more of, myself.

Some enterprising journalist should track down and interview every person tath was a member of the panal at the same time as Obama and Ayers, see what their views of them both are, and what their own party affiliations are.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:27 pm

It's already been disclosed that some of them were conservative Republicans. IIRC the organization was started by a conservative Republican. We are talking about welfare reform, after all.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:05 pm

Mulu wrote:I would characterize it as he is an acquaintance with a colorful background who was (and still is IMO) presumed to be an upstanding citizen now, given that he works as a tenured professor and is involved in multiple community projects aimed at helping inner city youth.

Well he's clearly more than just an acquaintance, which was the explanation Obama offered initially, and that only became apparent once CAC documents were made available by the Daly library in Chicago. Obama and Ayers have had a working relationship on the CAC, and the principal purpose of their efforts? Radicalization of parents and their children to achieve social transformation ... not education.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

I'm happy to read a rebuttal, if such exists.

MK, I think you're confusing CAC with ACORN. More about ACORN:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html

All the negative stuff said about Sarah Palin here has been true.

Oh? You mean all those attacks on her family were true? She was cheating on her husband? She was trying to abort her child? The child was really her daughters, not hers?

I understand you look down on her faith and dislike many of her personal views, but has she ever legislated her morality? Or are you doing what you accuse Republicans of doing and just playing up people's fears?

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:56 pm

Anything Mulu hears on his leftist blogs and websites must be true.

Its not even worth debating anymore. We have less than a month. Whomever wins will win. God help this country no matter who takes office. We are screwed either way.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:33 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:MK, I think you're confusing CAC with ACORN. More about ACORN:

Hrm, I only spoke of CAC in this thread. But since there was at least 3 Republicans on the board (Curious about the other 4) it's only fair to state that the Republican party has close ties to terrorists as well

For shame!

Kate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:08 am

ç i p h é r wrote:I'm happy to read a rebuttal, if such exists.

Not every right wing attack deserves rebuttal. Seriously, these rejects just keep making stuff up, flinging it out there, and hoping some of it sticks. Find a legitimate source for the information, so it would require rebuttal, because this source clearly is not legitimate. It's just another Catholic propaganda machine. Apparently the "Judeo-Christian moral tradition" that organization claims to uphold is to spread false opinions, misinformation and rumors as far and wide as you can.

ç i p h é r wrote:Oh? You mean all those attacks on her family were true? She was cheating on her husband? She was trying to abort her child? The child was really her daughters, not hers?

I don't recall the cheating on her husband one. Attempting a miscarriage is one of those things we'll just never know. The child not really being hers was the only false rumor, and at the time it was made it was simply unknown whether it was true or not. It also did some good, it forced her to admit that her unwed, underaged daughter was pregnant, something she would have otherwise tried very hard to hide I'm sure. Why is that good? Because she promotes abstinence only education, and this is the fruit of that misguided policy.

ç i p h é r wrote:I understand you look down on her faith and dislike many of her personal views, but has she ever legislated her morality?

Why is it that I know more about your candidates than you do? Yes. She's attended anti-abortion rallies on government time, and used her political standing to bully her way onto a hospital board to get abortion banned at the hospital, an action that was later ruled as illegal by the Alaska Supreme Court due to the hospital receiving federal funds. She also petitioned for and received funding from the Bush White House for faith based initiatives. In fact I think she received like the second most of anyone. She of course lobbied for abstinence only education, and supported bills for parental consent requirements for abortion. And that's just off the top of my head.

She has also promised to vigorously pursue her faith based policies if elected to the White House. I believe that campaign promise.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:01 am

Mulu wrote:Not every right wing attack deserves rebuttal.

The defacto defense for when you have no defense. Dismiss the charge, pretend to take the high road...the only problem here is that this isn't just some random rumor that emerged from the blogosphere as it did with most of the personal attacks on Palin, but an op-ed piece published in a respectable journal and formulated from documents detailing the activities of CAC. And Kurtz is hardly a reject. He's a Harvard man.

Because she promotes abstinence only education, and this is the fruit of that misguided policy.

But she's led by example. That her daughter lacked the moral fortitude she has isn't a failing of hers. Unless there's an alternative to abstinence that offers 100% protection from pregnancy, the message at least is correct. I don't know where the debate breaks down between liberals and conservatives on this issue because I think we can encourage abstinence and educate our kids about what's going on down there at the same time. Just learning about STDs can be a powerful deterrent to casual sex.

Mulu wrote:Why is it that I know more about your candidates than you do?

Because you are absolutely obsessed with her.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:08 am

ç i p h é r wrote: Unless there's an alternative to abstinence that offers 100% protection from pregnancy, the message at least is correct.

The proble with abstinence only education isn't that it educates that Abstinance is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy, it is that it educates only about abstinence.

If they were willing to go along the roads of "pursue abstinence, but if you really, really can't, use physical protection" it would be fine.

To claim the policy works, its just that some people don't follow it is a rather odd stance. For a *policy* that relies only on human behaviour to be said to be working, then it must be shown to be altering human behaviour. You can't blithely say "the policy works, its just humans that are wrong."

Amar · Post by **Amar** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:25 am

Left Wing != Democrat
Right Wing != Republican

Liberal != Democrat
Conservative != Republican.

Thank you very much and please start using appropriate terminology when classifying someones political ties ^.^

EDIT: And American roots itself in Radicals. 56 of them signed a certain document to make us a country in the first place.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:49 am

The problem about "abstinence only" education is that it is misguided, ill-conceived, medieval, in total denial of human nature, common sense or even epmirical data that clearly links "abstinence only" eduction to an increase in unwanted pregnancy and even sex. Not to mention the deviancies that this abstinence-pledge thing creates.

To go from the factual (first paragraph) to the polemical (this one!), it really seems that the G.O.P. is the party of butt-sex.

To go a step further, looking at these abstinence vow ceremonies, which are awfully reminscent of some kind of wedding, I'd say this delusional talk about abstinence only comes from the mind of obsessive dads who can't get over the fact that their oh-so-precious daughters are going to sleep with someone at some point. Golly gosh, the horror.

ç i p h é r wrote:That her daughter lacked the moral fortitude she has isn't a failing of hers.

Mate, this isn't a question of "moral fortitude", this is simply that teenagers are horny.

Equipping them with the proper education and knowledge empowers them to explore their sexuality in a fashion that is not dangerous to them. And it's proven to work, as opposed to abstinence only with no real sex-ed to speak of. I see no harm in telling kids "well... you can just keep from it until you're sure you have a guy / gal you trust", however, preaching the gospel of "abstinence only" (which you didn't, just talking about those who would) is in fact a more severe form of extreme radicalness (sorry, I refuse to use -ism words wrongfully

) than anything Obama ever seems to have voted for or associated with

.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:52 am

Mayhem wrote:You can't blithely say "the policy works, its just humans that are wrong."

Yet they do, and still at the same time their supporters have the cheek of calling the other party's guy a sneering elitist.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:47 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:
Mulu wrote:Not every right wing attack deserves rebuttal.
The defacto defense for when you have no defense.

I'm sorry you missed it. The defense is it's made up nonsense. The debunk was to show the source lacked any credibility, a valid defense.

ç i p h é r wrote: Dismiss the charge, pretend to take the high road...the only problem here is that this isn't just some random rumor that emerged from the blogosphere as it did with most of the personal attacks on Palin, but an op-ed piece published in a respectable journal and formulated from documents detailing the activities of CAC. And Kurtz is hardly a reject. He's a Harvard man.

Did you click on the link I provided? A sampling of that organization's articles:
Spreading the Virus
How ACORN and its Dem allies built the mortgage disaster.
By Stanley Kurtz

The Dems' Health-Care Distortions
Seeing through the Obama smokescreen.
By James C. Capretta

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.
By Stanley Kurtz

Obama's Glass House
It's his health-care plan that would push people out of job-based coverage.
By James C. Capretta

An Unhealthy Debate
Obama and Biden's health-care deceptions.
By Yuval Levin

They are a right wing propaganda machine. Period. That they got printed in the pages of the WSJ opinion section in no way gives them renewed credibility. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth get printed there too. I'm not going to waste my time debunking every piece of retarded propaganda out there.

Let me see if I can clarify it for you. I posted some nonsense about McCain supposedly causing a fire on an aircraft carrier that killed 133 soldiers. However, unlike you, I am smart and objective enough to spot it as propaganda even though it's from "my side" and in the same post I said I assumed it was propaganda and didn't believe it. I didn't *debunk* it, I saw no reason to take the time to do so. It was obviously made up. Just as most everything you post is obviously made up, and I don't take the time to debunk all of that either.

ç i p h é r wrote:
Because she promotes abstinence only education, and this is the fruit of that misguided policy.
But she's led by example. That her daughter lacked the moral fortitude she has isn't a failing of hers. Unless there's an alternative to abstinence that offers 100% protection from pregnancy

The alternatives may not be 100%, but they are *far far* higher than abstinence only. That's the point. Yeah, she's lead by example all right, and the example is that abstinence only sex-ed doesn't work. Teenagers will have sex, you can either protect them from those acts or let everyone suffer from them (less education, less productivity, greater likelihood of criminality, etc).

As for being obsessed with Palin, I think you have me confused with Vael. I'm simply *informed.*