Quote:

 

...Absolutely not. I'm saying that if someone has had past associations with something frowned upon by society, that that involvement should be questioned rather than looked over, because that's how problems begin.

Quote:

 

Sometimes I find that it is

Quote:

 

You're making it seem as though John McCain shuns all technology and stands outside on his porch with a shotgun in his hand. He's said that he goes on it to check his email and to look at a couple blogs and such. What the hell else do you want him to do, become a /b/tard?

Quote:

 

Isn't that just as underhanded as "questioning Obama's motives"? Because he doesn't know how to use the computer, are you saying he's not going to be able to understand what the "new generation" wants?

Quote:

 

I don't think a man who was a co-conspirator of a known homegrown terrorist group can be considered properly punished with mere public humiliation and a simple apology. If he can, then the status quo has grown too fucking soft. I don't see why Ayers is even still a free man after all that.

That and there's his ludicrous educational theory.

Beware the company you keep is the moral of this story. You can play it off as character assassination or dirty politics or whatever, but Ayers is a guy that Obama has sat on council with, accepted campaign funds from, and whose ideology he finds agreeable. Those mean Republicans, how dare they question the sincerity of an ex-terrorist?

Quote:

 

Those mean Republicans, how dare they question the sincerity of an ex-terrorist?

Quote:

 

But it's not being looked over, is it? But calling Obama a terrorist just because he agrees with something the man said? Ridiculous. They've sat in groups and council together, and know each other, great. Obama accepted a campaign donation from him. Great. So that goes to say that Obama is automatically a violent terror supporter? Wrong.

Quote:

 

Not here it's not. Otherwise, that would condone everything said by the people in the video I posted.

Quote:

 

Checks his email? The man publicly admitted to not being able to send an email. Email isn't even that new. I don't want him to become a /b/tard (Although that would be pretty lulzy). However, I would like him to get at least some of his act together. What's he going to do in office, not knowing how to do one of this simplest things possible on computer?

Quote:

 

No, it really isn't. That's questioning his qualifications. Questioning Obama's motives are judging his character and morals. I'd rather be painted a technological retard than morally bankrupt. Maybe that's just me.

Quote:

 

See above. The man should have been punished more effectively, yes. But seriously. Obama the 8-year-old terrorist? Come on. And Obama has to agree completely with everyone who sits on a council? If CNN's article on this isn't lying to me, then that time spent on council with Ayers was to raise money for the city of Chicago's education. That's terrorism?

Quote:

 

I think Ayers' evilness is being thrown out of proportion. He was adamantly against the Vietnam War, and was involved in a few riots. Eventually he helped plant a bomb to blow up a statue. Calling him a "domestic terrorist" is nothing but a tactic because of the stigma attached to the word terrorist.

Obama associates with terrorists
Obama is not white
Obama is Arab
Obama is a terrorist

It all fits perfectly together and that is not what McCain and Palin believe, but it's what they want their mob to believe. Obama has sat on a committee with him and accepted money from him as he is now, not as he was when he was blowing shit up. Now, Bill Ayers is a teacher. If Obama was buddy buddy with him back then, then okay, this propaganda might not be so propaganda-y.

Quote:

 

Also, people keep on saying that there are a lot of people only voting for Obama because he's black. While that may be true, you would be incredibly wrong to assume that there are half as many as those who are voting for McCain because Obama is black.

Phil

Oct 15 2008, 02:33 PM

I don't know much about Ayers' history, but if he is/was so dangerous, why is he now a college professor? Surely they wouldn't let a man who was so evil to now be a teacher? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:

 

EDIT: Whoops I'm getting to your post Yzarc, you got there before me. One sec

Punishment Divine

 

And there damn well should be stigma attached to the word terrorist.

Punishment Divine

 

The fact that he was involved with a terrorist and agreed with some of his ideals is huge, and should be put out there.

Punishment Divine

 

As for what McCain and Palin want their voters to believe...I can't even say. They're just doing what anyone running a campaign does: trying to discredit their opponent. People always draw conclusions, I see it all the time. Something in me doubts that they're pandering to the subconscious with some sort of subliminal messaging saying "Obama is a terrorist!"

Punishment Divine

 

I find a lot more people voting for Obama just because he's black, but that just may be because I'm from New York, ignorant liberal capital of the world. They are most likely an equal amount.

Quote:

 

He was not involved with a terrorist. He was involved with someone who, in the past, did some violent things. Ayers disagreed with the government, he didn't hate America, which is how he can be a regular citizen now. Obama did agree with some of his ideals, but certainly not the ones about planting bombs.

McCain and Palin are doing more than "putting it out there" It's almost become their new campaign slogan.

Quote:

 

I do believe that's what they're trying to do. They're losing the election (and let's be frank - they're going to lose) so they're getting desperate. What better way to win than to convince America that obama is a terrorist? The problem is, the majority of America isn't as stupid as the rednecks that actually believe them (who would have voted for McCain anyway, I should add) so this is more than likely only hurting them.

Quote:

 

Haha. It's funny how what you just said fits perfectly into how white people view racism. As you may know (but probably not, else you wouldn't have crossed into this territory), I'm a sociology major. I can say, for certain, that there are more racists against nonwhites than there are against whites. At the same time, I can also say that there are more people who believe that there is more racism directed towards white people than towards nonwhites. (Of course, the latter is only because there are more whites in America, and that's generally how they think)

It's a belief that comes from a white dominated society. More often than not, if you start to talk about racism in a group of white people, the biggest concern will be the problems with Affirmative Action, and will not even touch the fact that there exists racial stratification in our society. If racism only existed in the form of affirmative action, then nonwhites would generally be more wealthy than whites, when we can clearly see the opposite is true (unless you count Asians)

My point is, you can't make assumptions about American based on your own surroundings. The U.S. is a big place, dog, and not everyone is from New York. So even if it may not seem like it, racism, even if it is subconscious, is alive and well, and it favors whites significantly.

Punishment Divine

 

I'm not saying blacks are less likely to vote for McCain because he's white. I'm saying they're more likely to vote for Obama because he's black. Huge difference. It's not racism, it's just the fact that the idea of having a black president intrigues people of every race, and blacks the most. Some people think that blacks are gonna overcome just because Obama's the president and take over the world or something. Race is driving this election, and it's coming from both sides. Obama is just a typical liberal with some charisma...oh and btw he's black. Do you honestly think he's going to offer anything more to this country than any other Democrat? Or Hillary Clinton, which is another whole ethics argument in and of itself?

Quote:

 

It's ignorant to assume that he is a terrorist because of his name. It's reasonable to question him as a political figure if he's associating with a known terrorist. And it's not just Ayers - Obama has had many questionable acquaintances this entire campaign.

Quote:

 

Regardless of what he's questioning, it was an underhanded way to do it. If you truly think that the McCain campaign is attempting to demean Obama's motives and that they're dirty bitches for doing it, I think it's really hypocritical to say that the way they went about calling McCain a "technological retard" is A-OK

Quote:

 

Because it's CNN, I would imagine there's somewhat of a twist on it but the fact that he not only came into company with the man, but also received donations from him and has been known to openly agree with this known terrorist who doubles as a teacher with a radical, and liberal, agenda is questionable at the least.

Quote:

 

And there damn well should be stigma attached to the word terrorist. We're not even talking about someone in the Senate - we're talking the president of the U.S. The fact that he was involved with a terrorist and agreed with some of his ideals is huge, and should be put out there. As for what McCain and Palin want their voters to believe...I can't even say. They're just doing what anyone running a campaign does: trying to discredit their opponent. People always draw conclusions, I see it all the time. Something in me doubts that they're pandering to the subconscious with some sort of subliminal messaging saying "Obama is a terrorist!"