They just can’t help themselves at NoQuarter, where they react to Ayers on Hardball last night:
It is unconscionable to me that we and the MSM constantly RAGE about O.J. Simpson, who murdered two people, but not reject Barack Obama, a presidential candidate, now president-elect, who has associated freely and over a long time with a man who could have killed dozens and dozens of people.
At least they didn’t call Obama an “inadequate black male.” No link, just because they are scumbags.
Geeno
Um….Ayers never actually killed anyone. Heck, the Weather Underground was much better at killing themselves during bomb production than they ever were at killing anyone else.
Napoleon
Of course I could have killed dozens of people, but I didn’t, just like Ayers.
What losers.
TR
He associated with Ayers "freely"? What the fuck does that mean?
And for a long time? Really?
Get a fucking life, NoClue
Zifnab
You’re forgetting the Obama death list. The office was emptied and the files were never recovered. Oooweeeiiiooo.
Comrade Stuck
Suck on it, fuckwits.
That is all.
TR
How fucking stupid do you have to be to equate O.J., who personally murdered two people, with Obama, who knew someone else who might have killed some people but didn’t actually kill anyone?
Thanks for not providing a link to that stupidity. That circle-jerk of retardery needs to be starved to death.
Kali's Little Sister
I see lunatics all the time who propel tons of gleeming metal in the vicinity of homes, schools, hospitals, businesses! These idiots could veer onto sidewalks and kill dozens and dozens of people at any moment! In fact ***gasp *** it actually happens from time to time! The thought is undeniably terrifying.
If you drive a vehicle or "freely associate" with someone who does, you should be damned as a potential murder, and probable terrorist.
Shinobi
How do you get to be that stupid? Seriously? Are there drugs involved? Some kind of magical republican drug that allows you to completely suspend reality to justify your own incompetence?
Let me know if there is one, because I like drugs, and I want to make sure I avoid that one.
dmsilev
Living well is the best revenge. When, in a few weeks, we all turn on our TVs and see "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…", the sounds of wingnut heads exploding will be well worth it.
And yes, he’s said that he will use his middle name during the swearing-in ceremony.
-dms
Paragon Park
Countering a poor argument– that Obama is somehow culpable for Ayers’ reprehensible conduct merely because he associated with him forty years after the fact– with a far worse argument– that Ayers conduct really wasn’t reprehensible– is not particularly persuasive.
Legitimate questions exist about the degree of association and Obama’s knowledge of Ayers sordid past. A cooperative but tangential professional association with someone about whose past he was not fully aware can be justified. A closer association with knowledge would be much harder for anyone other than a sycophantic apologist to justify.
Napoleon
@dmsilev:
Actually its Barack Hussein Obama II.
D.N. Nation
Where’s the Whitey Tape?
Napoleon
@Paragon Park:
Hey dipweed, you lost the election and no one gives a flying f— about Ayers or your allegations. Climb back under your rock.
TheFountainHead
Shorter NoQuarter:
amorphous
AND ROD BLAGOJEFGHIJKLMNOP COULD HAVE APPOINTED TONY REZKO. IT’S ALL SO CLEAR NOW.
TheFountainHead
I have an odd but fervent hope that right after he’s sworn in, he climbs into a white bronco for his slow, police escorted drive to the White House. Just to make sure all the wingnut heads go-a-popin’
Comrade Stuck
@Paragon Park:
Those questions were answered this past election day.
Funhouse Proverb – Beating a dead horse is not a legitimate question. It is just beating a dead horse.
Balconesfault
Amazingly, this is even a step ahead of Rush on the reality scale – yesterday while radio slumming I’m sure I heard the fat one declaring that Ayers had killed people.
Napoleon
I was hoping his ride would be that truck from Sanford and Son.
brent
with a far worse argument—that Ayers conduct really wasn’t reprehensible—is not particularly persuasive.
Not particularly persuasive of what? The "argument" here is that the Noquarter buffoons are saying something stupid. The argument being made here is entirely persuasive on that point.
Aside from that you are misstating the argument. The assertion is that there is no real comparison between association with someone who may have possibly wanted to kill someone in the past and being someone who actually did kill people. Reprehensible vs not reprehensible is no part of that argument and so you are arguing against a strawman. Not particularly persuasive.
Brian J
Don’t they realize that if they go down this route yet again, it’s very easy for anyone to pull up the infamous characters McCain and other Republicans associate with? Of course, it’d be ridiculous to pretend McCain approved of anything these people did, but since when did logical bounds matter at all to these clowns?
Jennifer
In a related story, Johnny Cash once shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. And then all the big-name music stars went on freely associating with him. I think Bono should answer for this.
Jay
Since when did CIA folks care about killing people?
cleek
it would be impossible for wanna-be-firebomber to get the Presidential Citizens Medal. right?
JL
@Jay: We have a winner!You might want to post that at No Quarter.
Napoleon
@Napoleon:
Better yet, have the Army Band play the theme song from the Jeffersons as he drives down Penns. Ave with some revisions to the lyrics:
Well we’re movin on up,
To the east coast.
To a deluxe White House
Movin on up,
To the east coast.
We finally got a piece of the pie.
Fish don’t fry in the kitchen;
Beans don’t burn on the grill.
Took a whole lotta tryin’,
Just to get up that hill.
Now we’re up in the big leagues,
Gettin’ our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it’s you and me baby,
There ain’t nothin wrong with that.
Well we’re movin on up,
To the east coast.
To a deluxe White House.
Movin on up,
To the east coast.
We finally got a piece of the pie.
liberal
@Paragon Park:
Except his association with Ayers wasn’t particularly close.
Besides which, Bush has killed 4,000+ American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and turned literally millions of Iraqis into refugees, all in the course of a blatantly illegal war of aggression. Against that, Ayers not only isn’t on the radar; he’s not detectable with an electron microscope.
So STFU.
Keith
It’s unconscionable to me that we don’t reject Larry Johnson, a man who, as a former member of the CIA, could have tortured dozens and dozens of people.
liberal
@cleek:
Yeah, saw that.
Bush’s prick-itude knows no bounds.
Sinister eyebrow
Some people just don’t know when to give up. Was that Ayers post sandwiched between hysterical birth-certificate kerning rants? Or was it just free-floating, dangling stupidity?
Michael D.
A little OT, but a co-worker, commenting on the goings on in Illinois this week noted that the biggest winner in the Blagojevich scandal is the State of Louisiana!
They look great by comparison.
r€nato
indeed, at least the voters of Louisiana had the good sense to send William Jefferson packing.
Shinobi
Judy Barr Topinka scared us more. Quite rightly.
Comrade Stuck
People who were too young, not born yet, or just forgetful about those days, miss the big picture of those times. We had all sorts of mischief going on then from both sides. Almost weekly bombing or violent protests, were just kind of the daily Miliew of American life. What they forget is that the so called authorities, like Colson et al were doing at least as much bad stuff, as Ayer’s and others. It really was like a low level civil war. But of course, that was OK, because, well, if the government does it, it’s legal.
The Moar You Know
Almost on a daily basis, while navigating the San Diego hell that is the 5/805 merge, I’ve thought about killing the entire population of the planet. Sadly, like Ayers, I have a decently paying job, a place to live that’s not in my parents basement, and not enough time or money to put my horrific plans into action.
Better not "freely associate" with me.
The Grand Panjandrum
I look forward to posts on Obama’s secret ambition to make Ramadan a Federal Holiday and to paint the White House a different color. (Guess which one.) I’m sure he’s been in communication with Rep. Ellison and the painters union.
Brian J
I realize the risk I am taking here by asking this, but what sort of questions are you talking about?
Whether or not you agree with this, Ayers and his wife became accepted members (at least for the most part) of the community in Chicago. When Obama was asked to be on the board with Ayers, it wasn’t because his sordid past with political terrorism. It was because his education ideas. And Ayers wasn’t picked by Obama, nor was Obama picked by Ayers. Both of these guys were, if memory serves me right, picked by the Annenberg guy who picked several other people, including many Republicans.
Zifnab
Nah, he needs to cruise to his office in the General Lee, thus forever despoiling the beloved Dukes of Hazard for a generation of wingnut rebel wanna-bes.
Brian J
Some of us at my job yesterday were talking about the various ways he could fuck with the public come April Fool’s Day. Suggestions included putting rims on the presidential motorcade and figuring out a way to make the White House turn black for a day or two. You got any ideas?
4tehlulz
No Quarter gets trolled again. gg Bill Ayers.
Zifnab
Fixed. Although, making LA look normal is definitely a feat in and of itself.
TheHatOnMyCat
I still haven’t seen anything that looks like evidence that there was any meaningful association between Ayers and Barack, notwithstanding the Pal-in Around argument floated by our fine feathered GOP friends during the campaign. And I don’t expect to.
That said, I find Ayers to be the complete horse’s ass that I always thought he was, and yes, unrepentant. His ego is just a little too large for the hat he tries to wear.
Building bombs was goddam-fool stupid, sociopathic behavior, no matter how you slice it and dice it. If Ayers were the moral person he likes to think he is, he would be talking about the wrongness of stupidass bombuilding behavior and not still ranting about the war he opposed. Just my opinion.
The Moar You Know
@Paragon Park: Spell ’em out. What are those questions?
Let’s go, buddy, put your money where your mouth is. I’ll bet the collective here can answer them in fifteen minutes.
Jennifer
BTW, instead of referring to it as "No Quarter", we should all call it Secret Agent Flowbee’s Joint.
It truly is the event horizon of stupid over there.
Gerald Curl
O.J. : Ayers :: Kato Kaelin : Obama
r€nato
that’s because there is none.
If there was, it surely would have been dug up by GOP operatives and flogged endlessly.
Since none such evidence exists, all they have is innuendo.
Speaking of which, how much do we really know about Paragon Park’s preference for buggering goats? Legitimate questions exist about this and they have never been fully answered.
Napoleon
@Brian J:
Put a mule out on the front lawn of the White House and claim that he now has his 40 acres and a mule, as promised after the Civil War.
TheFountainHead
Heh. Solid ten points for that.
r€nato
Curl, I think you meant:
O.J.:Kato Kaelin::Ayers:Obama
Punchy
And I’m sure it was Cindy Sheehan, via Jane Hamsher’s lefty blog (but who’s not a lefty) who told Bill Ayers to use white phosphorus to kill as many people as possible, as well as how to kill dogs while driving a tank.
El Cid
I was among those cheering when Barack Obama was acquitted of killing his wife. As President, I think he will finally be able to find the real killers.
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
@Jennifer:
"No Darkies"
Jennifer
I keep hoping Obama will show up for every SOTU address in a different black stereotype outfit – rapper, pimp, etc. And One Nation Under a Groove would be quite fetching as an inaugural theme.
Speaking of the lunacy over at Secret Agent Flowbee’s, a few weeks back one of the resident morons was ranting about Obama’s plans to change the flag to include his face.
I’m not making this up.
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
@Punchy:
Cindy’s still too busy having her office swept for all the bugs Nancy Pelosi planted.
r€nato
He could announce a free concert on the mall featuring Public Enemy, N.W.A., Sistah Souljah, and what the hell, throw in Rick James and Milli Vanilli for good measure.
And he could announce it in the WH press room with a 40 ouncer in his hand.
…
Or, he could do a reprise of Dave Chappelle’s ‘we’re going to Mars, bitches!’ sketch
r€nato
I would like to see Obama do a rap video of his new song, "It’s Hard Out Here For A CINC"
TheFountainHead
I think "Damn it Feels Good to be A Gangsta" should play during the post inauguration parade.
Atanarjuat
The Ayers-coddling left is once again… coddling, applauding, and certainly defending Bill Ayers.
He didn’t kill anyone, despite having every intent to do so.
…and so the Ayers Pity Party joyously continues among the nodding minions of the great Liberal Hive Mind.
How predictable.
TheFountainHead
What a great name for an Indie Punk band. Thanks, Atanarjuat!
r€nato
George W. Bush has killed more people than Bill Ayers.
r€nato
Atanarjuat, suck on this:
You and your folks peddled the Bill Ayers smear and the voters did not buy it.
On January 20, I will be in DC to witness the swearing-in of PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II.
For the next four years – and hopefully eight years – your president will be BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II.
You can thank us later for the peace, prosperity and competent government he will return to this country.
Its me again
You know, the best way to deal with those bozos over at No Clue is to pose them questions like "How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?" or "How much do you think the RNC pays Larry to keep his web site going?" or better yet "Maybe Larry got confused and his sources had a "Whitney" tape, not a "Whitey" tape."
kay
It’s peak time for guilt by association, I’m telling you. This is the last spike before it flames out, because, predictably, it has now entered the realm of the ridiculous.
It’s a victim of its own success, this stupid tactic. You can’t use it for everything and then rely on it for anything real.
The Moar You Know
@Atanarjuat: Spell it out, motherfucker. What did he do?
We can have a conversation about this. But tell me exactly what he did that was so bad.
Comrade Dread
Talk about moral relativism.
Yes, kids, knowing a guy who did bad stuff in the 60’s when you were barely out of the womb is EXACTLY the same as ruthlessly hacking two people’s heads off.
Teh Stupid! It burns!
The Grand Panjandrum
They better be customized gold Dayton’s or I will be very disappointed.
The Moar You Know
@r€nato: Actually, you won’t. You’ll be present for the swearing in of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. Here’s how it would work, using me as the first-generation example:
King "Beer-Can Like Proportions" Motherfucker, Sr. (1st gen)
King "Beer-Can Like Proportions" Motherfucker, Jr. (2nd gen)
King "Beer-Can Like Proportions" Motherfucker, III. (3rd gen)
r€nato
come on, don’t you know?
he PALLED AROUND WITH HIM.
gee if you can’t understand that, then you are just another lie-bruhl drunk on the lie-bruhl media kool-aid.
r€nato
Moar, I thought for sure he was "II" not "Jr."
well whatever. It’s the HUSSEIN part which I hope will make certain heads explode.
Napoleon
@r€nato:
I thought he used II instead of Jr also.
r€nato
Wikipedia sez it’s Barack Hussein Obama II.
(of course, Wikipedia has a well-known liberal bias, which means they are covering up the fact that his REAL name is, "Barack GOD DAMN AMERICA PRAISE BE TO ALLAH DEATH TO THE INFIDELS Obama II)
Will
Oh, but they certainly have, a million times over. In fact, that crazy bitch Harriet Christian is one of their guest "columnists".
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/26/my-name-is-harriet-christian/
The Moar You Know
@r€nato: He can do whatever he wants, he’s the fucking President :) But there are some non-hard and fast rules. Emily Post to the rescue:
The Wikipedia article also contains the head-exploding information that Tom Cruise’s real name is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV, which is going to keep me laughing all day.
r€nato
Moar, I think it is likely up to the person to whom belongs the name, to decide whether they want to be "II" or "Jr." Most people AFAIK choose "Jr."; it IS uncommon to see "Joe Blow II" but, I think whatever the person wants to be called, that’s how it goes.
Oh and since you disagree with me, you are a goatfucker, a racist, a gayophobe and not a ‘real’ progressive.
r€nato
…btw I could go the rest of my life without reading the phrase, "such and such politician says they did not ‘pay to play’ with Blagojevich"
eeewwwwwwwww brain clorox please
The Moar You Know
Guilty. You ought to see what me, Atanarjuat and MyIQ get up to when we’re not burning crosses on the lawns of the colored folk.
OriGuy
Have his Secret Service detail wear small red bowties.
Keith
Obama’s "Certificate of Live Birth" (I use that because someone is gonna want to start some semantical argument about it not being a "Birth Certificate") says "II", not "Jr.". The state of Hawaii does not codify into law that someone has to be called "Jr.", but it does codify that the name recorded on this document is the person’s name until it’s changed in a court of law. Therefore, social norms aside, he’s "II", and not "Jr" because that’s his legal name.
r€nato
ftw!
Napoleon
@OriGuy:
FTW
4tehlulz
@The Moar You Know: GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS
r€nato
have you laid eyes on the original birth certificate?
I didn’t think so! HAH! Advantage, tinfoil hat nutters!
Joshua Norton
The protocol is usually "Jr." is the name for a son named after his father. He usually drops it when his father dies. "II" is for someone who is not a son of the person with the same name. A son would be Jr. A grandson would be II.
Brian J
Too funny.
Brian J
I have to admit, I’m not certain of what this is supposed to mean. Is it a play on the idea that he’s a Muslim?
r€nato
Brian J –
it’s an allusion to Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X and the whole Nation of Islam thing.
Ack, Sysadmin of Evil
Hell, Laura Bush has killed more people than Bill Ayers.
Cain
@ Jennifer
I believe the standard right now is "Flowbee’s Fortress of Fucknuttery".
Napoleon
@Brian J:
Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam bodyguards have been know to wear them.
Brian J
Full of WIN!
random asshole
There’s a key point that’s missing here. According to our wonderful criminal justice system, O.J. never actually killed anyone. Even if he wrote a book speculating about how that exact event would have transpired…
TR
Seriously, what are they? You say there are so many questions, but refuse to name them.
Nice list of commies in your hand, Senator McCarthy.
The Moar You Know
Oh shit, you just invented the anti-wingnut atom bomb.
South of I-10
@Zifnab: Ssshhhh. We are trying to lay low and let someone else take the heat for a change. Maybe that is what the snow is all about – it’ll be a cold day in hell before LA is not the most corrupt state?
I nominate Agent Flowbee’s post for most ridiculous post of the year. Obama has not even taken office yet, I am sure the BS will increase 10 fold when he does.
Docrailgun
I know this is an unpopular position… but OJ Simpson was acquitted of those murders. So, as far as anyone ought to be concerned, he didn’t do it.
Brian J
That’s what I was thinking.
Along the lines of what a poster above suggested about giving the SOTU speech in a different costume each year, perhaps Obama could dress up as Rev. Wright one year, a Red Army solider the next, and then Bill Ayers the third year for Halloween.
TR
Fruit of Islam, the NOI security force, wears bow ties.
Reminds me of my favorite Onion headline: "Fruit of Islam Causes White Man to Soil Fruit of Looms."
Joshua Norton
And yet wingnuttia is filled with rants about how he was the worst president ever.
Paragon park
The questions are just that– questions. And, no, winning an election does not render those questions moot. I seem to recall other politicians winning elections when it was subsequently learned that campaign issues that did not swing the election had merit.
I don’t, and you don’t, know the full story about the degree of either Obama’s association with Ayers or how much Obama actually knew about Ayers’ past. I voted for Obama in the primary and general election but that does not mean I am rendered deaf, blind and stupid. I can recognize when legitimate questions that have been insufficiently answered exist, whether those questions involve people on "my side" or the other.
I fully agree that it is absurd to suggest Obama is somehow responsible for the terrorist actions someone committed long before Obama met him. That does not mean, however, that Obama is not responsible for showing a lack of judgment and character in choosing to partake in an advantageous association with someone who deserves to be shunned by any reasonable standard. That others have also chosen the dubious course of not shunning Mr. Ayers in no way justifies any other person’s decision.
I’m willing to leave open the possibility that Obama simply was unaware of the true nature of Ayer’s past activities until it was brought to his attention. I am sure I have associated with people who unbeknownst to me have done inexcusable things.
Now that Obama certainly does know about Ayers there is nothing wrong at all at requeting that he address the topic directly and forthrightly.
The argument that he simply should be given a pass either because he won the election or because we prefer his politics to some of those questioning him is a disingenuous and blatantly immoral one.
r€nato
FTW II
joe from Lowell
Yes, imagine, treating somebody who killed two people with his own hands differently from somebody who…uh…didn’t kill anybody, but who knew someone who…uh…also didn’t kill anybody.
But coulda!
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I think they are all of the type, "What association did A have with B?"
Absent any evidence of actual association, which is usually the case when there are vague "unanswered questions," the correct answer is, "We don’t know, and absent evidence, we don’t assume any."
Ayers and Obama lived in the same neighborhood and probably went to some of the same meetings once.
Okay, I live in a neighborhood, and sometimes I go to the neighborhood association meetings. There are 110 houses in the neihborhood, and probably 300+ people live in them. Out of those people, I know maybe a dozen by name, and another dozen or two by sight — by that I mean, I know roughly what house they live in by their face or their car.
Of the other 270+ people in the neighborhood, I know essentially nothing except that I see some of them at the Safeway store once in a while. Some of those 270 are at the meetings I go to sometimes.
In GOP parlance, then, I am "palling around" with any of those 270 people that happen to have a dark past.
TheFountainHead
Hubuhwah??
TR
All evidence here to the contrary?
Tsulagi
Hadn’t seen her before. Now there’s an attractive poster girl for the PUMAs. Sorta like Morans Guy for the 28%ers. Or just a crazy old woman. Tough call, will have to run it through my misogyny detector.
Mildly curious, but not really, what clear-thinking PUMAs exemplified by the woman above think of Hillary accepting the SecState position offered by Obama. Is she now a sellout? Or is unfairly beaten, poor defenseless Hillary simply acquiescing to male oppression? What?
tomjones
@Joshua Norton: So you’re saying Malcolm X really was the father?
Joshua Norton
Well, basically they start with nothing, and take it from there.
The Grand Panjandrum
Where is TZ to declare this thread officially over?
TR
Seriously, do you think that with the national press corps, the rightwing blogs, and the local Chicago media digging through this issue for the past year, that there might somehow be dark evidence of an illicit relationship between Ayers and Obama, and none of those people found it? Really?
There are questions that still need to be answered as to whether or not your grandfather had sex with farm animals. I’m still not convinced, and those questions are still lingering.
Jay in Oregon
And you’d never catch anyone on the right advocating killing law enforcement officers. Oh, wait…
gwangung
I agree.
After all, Ayers got millions of dollars from that terrorist-supporting fount, the Annenbergs. I mean, they did support McCain and Bush….
Tim Fuller
Why do you even repost such drivel? Not on my site.
Enjoy.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Make me an offer.
I don’t do this stuff for free, pal.
Paragon park
No one is saying that Obama’s association with Ayers was "illicit" in the sense that they were conspiring to do bad things. What we don’t know is whether at the time he chose to allow Ayers to host a get together designed to raise support for his fledgling political career and then later "networked" with him he understood more than that Ayers was a "former 60s radical." Lots of "60s radicals" exist who merely engaged in legitimate dissent and had (have) extreme political views. There is nothing wrong with associating with them. There is something wrong with associating with someone who not merely advocated the use of violence for political purposes but actually engaged in it.
I repeat. You don’t know whether Obama knew about Ayers’ true past or not. Now, there is nothing wrong with requesting an answer from Obama. If he didn’t know he should simply say so. What’s the big deal with that?
Are you afraid of what the answer might be?
Brian J
@Paragon park, 97:
Lots of words, no questions. If these "questions" you speak of are so pertinent to Obama’s presidency, why not name some of them?
r€nato
hey paragon-
THE ELECTION IS OVER.
Nobody cared a month and a half ago, and even fewer people care now.
Will
Then why did you vote for Obama, if you have such trouble with this association?
TR
Are you under the impression that he hasn’t given an answer many times already? Does he need to show up on your fucking doorstep and tell you it personally?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
My parents held coffees and raised money for politicians on a regular basis. Dozens of them. I don’t recall any of those politicians sending out a questionnaire or asking for a background check on my parents before they showed up for the event. Mainly I remember them asking two things: Is there food, and could you point me to the bathroom?
How does this work in your world?
Senyordave
I think Obama should invite Limbaugh to the inauguration. he could then get a firsthand view of Limbaugh’s head exploding (or maybe imploding) at the first mention of "President Obama".
The Moar You Know
@Paragon park: I’m going to ask you one more time – name one of these "legitimate questions" that you know exist. That’s all I’m asking for. One. Can you do that?
Paragon park
Because I don’t know that Obama did know about Ayers’ true past. I think it is highly plausible to believe that he just had a general idea that he was "former 60s radical."
My points, which should not be difficult to grasp, are that I find it absurd to suggest that politicians should be granted immunity from answering legitimate questions and that it is completely legitimate to aks Obama to explain what his understanding of Ayers was then, and, if he had an incomplete understanding then, whether his more complete understanding now would cause him to act differently toward Ayers. Those are simple and legitimate questions which have not been answered.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Okay, write him a letter and ask him, and report back.
Meanwhile, you got anything else?
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
If you don’t stop clutching your pearls so hard you’ll be sorry, because you’ll end up breaking the damn string that holds them all together, and then you’ll have to spend all morning picking them up.
…and you’ll have to buy a new string, too.
Does that answer some of your questions for you?
tomjones
@Paragon park: No, it’s that no one cares what the answer is. Well, excepting you and Sean Hannity, of course.
Everyone else has moved to more important matters like, I don’t know, the collapsing economy and – if you absolutely must have your guilt by association cake – the Rod-Obama nexis.
Joshua Norton
Apparently you never watched any of the debates or interviews. That question was asked and answered multiple times. After a while it’s not a question but hounding by an uninformed idiot, or a trouble maker with nothing to say.
Punchy
Let’s not go down this road again. O’Slay Simpson offed at least 2 peeps, and I am concerned about it.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Your troll is now on very thin ice. You apparently don’t find it absurd to suggest that because you don’t have the answer you find dispositive to this question, you can characterize the subject of the question as having been "granted immunity from answering legitimate questions."
Please show that you have been granted immunity from being advised to go fuck yourself very much, otherwise, please go fuck yourself very much.
Tsulagi
@Paragon park:
Already asked and answered. That it did not satisfy your suspicions gleaned from a reading of your toenail clippings is something you may suffer long and hard. Life sometimes sucks like that for some.
Keith
Hasn’t Obama already discussed his association with Ayers? This reeks of the standard pundit practice of saying "He needs to answer these questions" after they were, in fact, answered. If the answers weren’t to your satisfaction, so be it, but beating the drum over and over again about how he didn’t do something at all is somewhat disingenuous.
Similar to the drumroll over Rezko. "Obama needs to explain his associations with Rezko!" Well, he did that already, but some folks weren’t paying attention. Maybe they didn’t care; maybe it’s because it doesn’t fit in with a predetermined narrative.
Shinobi
FTW
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
OT: if, as in my workplace, colleagues insist on yammering about how Poor Brown People Caused The Economic Meltdown (IOW, everything I know about the world was learned from Sean Hannity), here’s a good short read from Barry Ritholtz’s The Big Picture.
Will
No, this is just concern trolling.
"Oh, sure, I voted for Obama just like you guys, but darn it, I just can’t get over these unanswered questions about Bill Ayers! Isn’t it funny how an Obama supporter like myself just happens to parrot the most popular right-wing talking points of the election season? I guess this legitimizes my endless series of questions on this subject, since, like I said earlier, I voted for Obama! Just like you!"
Crusty Dem
Shorter Paragon park:
Concern troll has vague, but important, concerns.
Haiku Paragon park:
questions have been asked
details I will not provide
still, aren’t there quesitons?
Limerick Paragon park
There was an old man taught at UIC
Who planted some bombs in the 60’s
A few did go boom
with no one in the room
It makes me have vague questions which I am incapable of asking clearly at this moment
Ok, that last one needs work…
Travis
2 points…
1. I hate to find myself in the position of defending Ayers, who I find smug, self-congratulatory, and generally dislikable at least in part because he refuses to be intellectually honest about what the Weathermen were actually trying to do (see: Days of Rage). But at the same time, here I am, defending him … in the sense that it’s even less intellectually honest to claim that Ayers "killed people" or tried to do so. During the whole period of the WU, great effort was taken to destroy property without loss of life. You or I can disagree about the effectiveness of bombing as a means of persuasion, or its moral character, or even the legality of doing so in opposing a war that killed millions, but the fact remains that they were trying to damage property without killing people. It seems an important point when Ayers is constantly called a "terrorist" and a killer.
2. Wouldn’t the Christian thing to do be to forgive Mr. Ayers? Turn the other cheek and all that. What say you, Christians?
demimondian
@Paragon park: List these "legitimate questions", please. What are the ones you want answered?
Here, I’ll help you with couple that I expect are on your mind.
"Bill Ayers was accused of serious crimes, but was never tried, much less convicted, because of prosecutorial misconduct. What are your plans to regulate the Justice Department and the FBI in order to reign in such cowboy prosecutors and protect the rights of American citizens?"
"What steps should be taken against J. Edgar Hoover and his protegees to winnow out the truth about their long-running attempt to destroy civil rights leaders through guilt by association with alleged Communists, just as their heirs have used similar guilt-by-association attacks on you? What legislative steps can be taken now to provide a means by which the victims of such tactics can be made whole in the court system, without impairing the first amendment rights of legitimate -concern trolls- petitioners?"
"Do you believe that the on-going actions of fringe elements American far right constitute sedition similar to the in which Ayers and the Weather Underground participated? What steps, if any, are you planning to take to protect us from their inevitable descent into violence? What affirmative steps are you going to protect the rights to protest and petition for the vast majority of right-wingers who are law-abiding, productive, and valuable citizens, while weeding out the thugs and monsters?"
passerby
The guy who wrote this would make a good psyche study participant. The thesis:
The Pathological Cause of the Superimposition of Parallel Universes on Actual Reality and Its Effects on Collective Consciousness.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
A friend wrote earlier today:
Some levity, by Bob Cesca from HuffPo
liberal
@Paragon park:
Don’t be a total dumbsh*t. As everyone has pointed out above, this stuff has been gone over many times.
As for "legitimacy," it’s not even an important question—it’s just ignorant McCarthyite guilt-by-association "when did you stop beating your wife?" nonsense.
Again, moron, if you want to tally up moral crimes, and then extend guilt via association, the entire political establishment would suffer by comparison, given that they either were the driving force behind the Iraq invasion (the executive branch), gave approval of such (Congresscritters who voted for the Oct 2002 AUMF), provided ideological cover (despicable scum like Thomas Friedman, Ken Pollack, etc)…and on top of that you add in everyone who "associates" with them (e.g., for Congress, that would then include everyone who actually voted against the AUMF, given they "associate" with the warmongers)…
But I imagine that for you, the crime of a vague association with an ex-radical (admittedly somewhat repellant ex-radical due to his lack of real contrition) strongly overshadows the monstrous crime being committed in our name over in Iraq.
Paragon park
My my. For something you guys don’t care about you are awfully emotional about it.
Obama has never answere either question. all he ever did was make a statement denouncing the violent actions of the WU. Did you expect him to applaud them or say they were no big deal?
That does not answer the question of whether he knew or didn’t know about Ayers previously when he chose to associate with him. It also does not answer the question raised if he didn’t know of whether what he subsequently learned would have caused him to choose differently if he had known at the time.
Rather than the profane attacks on someone who thinks the questions are legitimate, why don’t you attempt to devise some rationale for why the questions should never be asked.
Napoleon
@Paragon park:
He answered the questions dumb f—
wingnuts to iraq
@Paragon park:
blah blah balh blah blah
go masturbate to G. W. Bush or Sarah Palin or something.
Or does us a favor and hang yourself.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
On the other hand, maybe P. Park has a point; Obama DID belong to an exclusive group (only 100 members) to which a convicted sexual offender also belonged (Larry Craig). It is quite possible that Craig and Obama may have spoken in private several times, and most certainly they have shaken hands at one time or another. Further, both comes from states that have "I" as the first letter (Idaho & Illinois).
These things of possible concern could possibly cause great consternation if they are not directly and forthrightly addressed. Why won’t Obama speak to these allegedly potentially troubling issues? What potentially troubling unsubstantiated alleged secrets might he be trying to cover up?
Every concerned citizen should demand an immediate and direct response, and if we don’t get one right now, well, I’m gonna hold my breath until I turn blue, and I further urge all of you reading this to do the same.
Now will someone help gather up my pearls? They’re all over the damn place now since the damned string broke a little while ago.
Shinobi
Paragon,
Does it really matter if he knew or not? Will that really make a difference? Because here’s how it goes:
Obama says, Yes, I did know, but I did not think it was important because these events happend when I was 6. The right loses it because he knowingly associated with a bad bad bad person who was never actually convicted of doing anything wrong
Obama says, No, I didn’t know, he was just some guy I know. Suddenly he’s an uninformed idiot about things that happend when he was 6, and how can we trust someone so naive to be president? He could be associating with terrorists constantly and never know it. He would put our country in danger with his naivete.
See? There is no point. People are stuck on the issue that he knew a guy who did some bad stuff and therefore SOMETHING BAD.
I think the fact that Obama refuses to get caught in a trap where he’s constantly appeasing people asking stupid questions about people he barely knows says more important things about him than his vague association with some old hippie.
Get over it.
Paragon park
Let’s try this. Assume a politician chose to have am "anti-abortion activist" arrange and host a party where he could meet and establish relationship with acquaintances of the anti-abourtion activist. Assume the politician later participated in groups in which the anti-abortion activist was an imprtant player.
Then it is disclosed that the anti-abortion activist didn’t merely speak out against abortion but conspired to bomb clinics. Assume also that due to icompetence the bombs merely caused minor property damage and the activist was not convicted for reasons unrelated to actual guilt.
How many of you would be denouncing those who chose to ask the politician whether he knew the anti-abortion activist conspired to commit acts of violence? How many of you would object to asking the politician if in light of learning about the activist’s past he would not merely denounce his past actions but state directly that he would never have associated with the activist had he known?
liberal
@Paragon park:
LOL! You’re a moron.
You still haven’t provided a rationale why you think this ostensible moral crime/lapse/whatever is more important than (or even faintly comparable to) the one revolving around mass-murderer George W. Bush.
Will
Oh, I see, fellow Obama supporter. We thought you were hoping for engagement, but now, it is clear you want to be ignored. Consider it done, fellow Obama supporter.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Dude, this ain’t our first troll rodeo. Don’t puff yourself up, that’s a dead on tell. We are laughing at you, nothing has crawled up to the level of "emotional" here.
We think you are a joke and probably doing your first assignment for your Troll 101 class.
So far this crew doesn’t think you got game. Bring it, pendejo. Whaju got?
liberal
@Paragon park:
You continue with this ass-hattery.
I’ve already provided a good example of someone who actually did murder hundreds of thousands of people—G. W. Bush. And somehow, against that backdrop, you’re worried about Obama and Ayers.
Shinobi
How old was the politician when the anti-abortion activist engaged in illegal and immoral activites? Has the anti-abortion activist since seen the error of his/her ways? Has the anti-abortion activist been allegedly involved in planning acts of violence during this century?
These are important questions and cannot simply be brushed aside.
Paragon park
OK. I don’t think it’s as bad. Is that now the standard for whether something is proper? Are all things now justified if we can point to something worse?
Catsy
I think he did, but only by essentially destroying PP’s idiotic premise. To add to TZ’s brutal dissection, I would like to add that according to my city’s police department, there are at least two convicted sex offenders in my neighborhood. I’ve met one of them; he’s a nice guy but I wouldn’t ask him to babysit my son. I’ve got a pretty good idea where the other lives, but he leaves me and mine alone and I do the same. By the metric the GOP has set for the Ayers-Obama nonsense, I pal around with child molesters.
Let’s be clear here: this is nothing more than CDS 2.0: The Obama Years. All the fucktards who eagerly lapped up the irradiated kool-aid of Limbaugh’s Cult of Vince Foster have shifted gears into foaming over the Ayers-Wright-Obama Axis of Evil. It’s the rallying cry of people so deranged and unable to cope with the fact that their guy didn’t win, they’ll say anything to delegitimize him and convince themselves they’re fighting the good fight against an enemy of America.
Paragon Park is one of the better ones I’ve seen lately. He’s pretty good at wiping the foam off his mouth, and does a pretty fair job of making batshit insanity sound reasonable, if you don’t think about it too long.
But when you do stop to exercise even one brain cell, his argument falls apart. According to PP, he voted for Obama in the primary and the general, and yet still, NOW, thinks that there are "legitimate questions"–and if that turn of phrase doesn’t tip you off that he’s a thinly veiled wingnut, you need your sensors calibrated–about Obama’s associations with Ayers.
That’s worth repeating. PP believes that Obama’s contact with a former domestic terrorist is strong enough to merit ongoing investigation. For PP, this raises serious concerns about Obama’s judgment and character, concerns strong enough to persist after the election, despite which he voted for Obama in both the primary and the general? Really? Why do you hate America?
I call bullshit. If I have serious, substantial concerns about whether someone has had nontrivial contact with a terrorist–especially someone who is seeking the highest office in our country, who’s about to become the most powerful man in the country–I’m not going to sit around concern trolling. My first phone call is going to be to the FBI.
I’m not talking about meeting for an innocent cup of coffee. I’m not talking about living in the same neighborhood, or even serving on the same board. I’m talking about the kind of contact that makes me think, "this person’s association with a terrorist makes them a risk to this country".
Is that what you’re talking about here, PP? Do you think Obama’s associations with Ayers pose a threat to this country? Do you have any evidence that this is so? Is there anything in Obama’s lifetime of service to this country that suggests to you that he shares not only political goals with Ayers, but support of his choice of means as well?
If you do, and if there is, then call the FBI. Call the DHS. Nut up and resign from the 101st Chairborne, show some real patriotism by bringing your evidence and concerns to the law enforcement agencies with a mandate to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism. In other words, put your money where your fucking mouth is.
If not, then kindly STFU and stop embarrassing yourself. You’re like a relic from election season who doesn’t realize their own irrelevance.
demimondian
@Paragon park: From a generally negative article in the new york times, we have the following paragraph
So the silly question you keep raising is asked and answered, many times.
Now, how about some substantive ones? I’ve helped you…perhaps you have some others?
Paragon park
shinobi
OK. The politician was a child when the anti-abortion activist conspired to bomb the clinics, it occurred in the previous century, the activist said he probably didn’t go far enough back in the day, but we have no reason to believe he has tried to blow anything up in the past 40 years.
Is it then perfectly acceptable to associate with the anti-abortion activist?
The Moar You Know
According to Obama’s own explanation:
Hmmm, doesn’t sound like much of an association. Let’s dig deeper:
I shook hands with Duke Cunningham once. I had no idea who he was. Like Obama’s experience, I was taken to meet him by a friend of mine. Am I guilty of "associating" with traitors to the United States?
Kilkee
@Joshua Norton: No, a grandson would be "III," not "II."
As Emily post says above, the usual sequence is James John Smith, his son JJS, Jr., his son JJS, III and so on. The mysterious "II" usually pops up in recognition of an uncle. Classic case: Joe Kennedy, Jr. died in WW2. His bother, Robert Kennedy, named HIS first child "Joseph P. Kennedy, II," and then named his next child after himself: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Nevertheless, since my man Barack has chosen to use "II" on his obviously and now clearly clumsily forged birth certificate, I’m fine with that, too.
liberal
@Paragon park:
You’re still an asshat if that’s the best response you can come up with.
It’s not just a matter of "not as bad." It’s a matter of "orders and orders of magnitude not as bad," especially given (as others have repeatedly pointed out) the weakness of the association between Ayers and Obama.
You’re just a dumbass concern troll.
TheFountainHead
Obama met George W. Bush once. Shook his hand too.
I still voted for him. It was hard, but I did it.
demimondian
@Paragon park: Let’s see — the activist has been completely law-abiding, has earned a doctorate, is employed at a major university, and leads several boards well.
Gosh — if that person isn’t an acceptable citizen, then my friends had better stop talking to me, since I also engaged in illegal acts to change national policy when I was in my twenties. Was never tried or convicted. Have since earned a doctorate. And now lead a number of charitable and humanitarian efforts in my community.
Oh, and even sit on the boards of some of them.
Your point is?
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
OMG, a HYPOTHETICAL CONUNDRUM!!!
Well, I guess that hypothetically puts us all in our hypothetical places, as well as hoisting us on our hypothetical petards.
I stand hypothetically humbled by your hypothetically immense mental and logical acuity.
But to answer your hypothetical question, well, that’s an easy one; I’d leap into the nearest phone-booth and change into my Super Ass-in-the-Hat-on-My-Cat costume and foil the murderous anti-abortion cretin, and then turn him over to the Chief of Police right in front of a band of adoring newsmen at the Daily Planet. Perry White would then say, "Thank Heavens he was here to save the day", and Lois Lane would sigh and wonder "who he really is", while I would suddenly appear next to her, still readjusting my tie and hat and say, "Yes, Lois…I guess we all wonder about that sometimes."
Oh, then Perry White would make some remark asking why I always showed up late whenever Super AITHOMC guy saved everyone, and everyone else would wonder why Perry didn’t fire my always-late-for-these-things ass and then probably figure I had pictures of him doing something or other with Jimmy Olsen.
There, does that answer your hypothetical question?
libarbarian
I’m sorry but I am so fucking tired of hearing this bullshit!
If a damn Klansmen had been invovled in a conspiracy to blow up a black church which was avoided merely because his friends blew themselves up in the process of building the bomb, very few people consider "Well, he never did actually kill anyone" to be a powerful defense on his behalf.
Ayers TRIED to kill people – he just wasn’t successful. That is NOT a mitigating element in my book.
David Hunt
Actually, I believe that was tried. The judge throwing out virtually all the evidence because the Justice Department and the FBI willfully broke the law in gathering that evidence is why Ayers is safe from prosecution today. I suspect that he protected by Double-Jeopardy. However a prosecutor from that case complained about the charge of prosecutorial misconduct. He maintained that he took the evidence that the FBI and DOJ gave him and that it was all their fault. You can believe that or not, but the judge didn’t sanction the prosecutors.
Paragon park
"I shook hands with Duke Cunningham once. I had no idea who he was. Like Obama’s experience, I was taken to meet him by a friend of mine. Am I guilty of "associating" with traitors to the United States?"
You answer the quesyion by saying you had no idea who he was and all you did was shake his hand.
The questions are:
If you had been introduced to him so he could help your career and you knew at the time he was a crook would that be OK?
If you didn’t then know he was a crook but then later learned he was would you feel it fair for people to ask whether if you had known he was a crook you would have chosen not to meet with him despite the advantage to your career?
If asked that question, would you directly answer it by saying, "had I known Cunningham was a crook I would have had nothing to do with him."
demimondian
@demimondian: To be clear: my association with those radical activities was public, and anyone doing oppo research on anyone who ever had a reception at my house — of which there are several up and coming politicians — would find me on film. And, no, I was not a wild-eyed radical, I was the scary kind who quietly laid out the actions to be taken, and their likely consequences.
It also turned out later on that I and the folks I worked with were right, and that the government policy we were protesting by our actions was, in fact, widely rejected by Americans across the nation. And, yes, we were peaceful, although our actions were still potentially dangerous to others. But those are minor issues — I’m still an eighties era radical, and, yes, I help politicians get started.
Ack, Sysadmin of Evil
Me thinks the thread was officially over when Paraquat Park arrived.
demimondian
@David Hunt: Nope. Never tried. The charges were dropped while he was in hiding.
Shinobi
Paragon,
Then Yes.
But I wouldn’t vote for the politician, because they are anti-abortion. (Not because they associated with random people.)
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Damn Paragon, you are taking some serious slap right here, straight up, mahbrutha.
School us up, fizzle.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@Paragon park:
Yes. SATSQ, v3.14.
What else you got?
AhabTRuler, V
Incorrect. Direct descendants keep their numerical suffix. Since my father, grandfather, &c. are/were all AhabTRulers, I keep my number forever, and can name my kid(s) Ruler or Rulerette VI. If I were named after an Uncle or other indirect relative, I would drop the suffix after their death.
That being said, I don’t think there are any strict rules on the subject.
Change your name to yadda-yadda, XXXXII, or John Cole, MCMCXII, or whatever.
demimondian
@Shinobi: Not necessarily. Most of the people I support don’t share my opinions on immigration laws or gay rights, for instance. My support is not conditional on them agreeing with me on those issues; I support them because I think that they’re decent people who will do a good job in office.
Paragon park
Monty:
I have my disagreement with your moral values and the right to express my mine— and the ability to do it without raving nonsense or ad hominem invective.
Napoleon
What drives wingnuts like Paragon park crazy is that Obama’s popularity rating is close to 80% and even though the Ayers thing was completely aired no one cares, but he thinks that if he just repeats it for the one zillionth time that suddenly everyone will see the light and be sorry that they are getting Obama for a president.
But in reality people want him as president and they see the Ayers thing for exactly what it is, nothing.
TheFountainHead
Heh, you haven’t spent much time at BJ have you?
Raving nonsense and ad hominem invective are pretty much all we deal in here, no?
jake 4 that 1
Clearly we need to carpet bomb the University of Illinois at Chicago and then hunt down everyone who ever took a class taught by Ayers and then we need to find all of his relatives.
After the initial round of slaughter we can decide if people who knew anyone who knew Ayers should be spared.
What’s that? What about Bush, the invasion of Iraq and subsequent actual deaths of countless civilians? Pffft, they associated with that murder Saddam Hussein, serves them right.
Crusty Dem
I’m sorry, are we getting hypothetical concern trolling? It’s getting a little meta- in here..
demimondian
@Paragon park: Listen, Malathion Mark, can I give you a bit of friendly, avuncular advice?
We see fools here all the time. You aren’t the first, and you won’t be the last, and one of the things we’ve learned about handling you is that one should never argue with a fool, as the audience will usually not know the difference.
"But, but, but," you say, "aren’t you arguing with me?"
No, we aren’t. We’re *toying* with you. Seriously. We’re leaving you to the likes of TZ to shred.
Paragon park
Why do you assume I am a "wingnut" simply because i think it is fair to ask these questions — and with some of you at least, disagree about the acceptability of certain answers?
I thought open and free debate was something the wingnuts opposed and we favored. I thought we believed that in our society we have the right, if not the obligation, to ask questions of our leaders.
Did I miss the meeting where it was decided it is unpatriotic to ask questions?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Bzzt!
That’s called a whine. Penalty box, 4 minutes.
Shinobi
demimondian
To be clear. I said I wouldn’t vote for them. I cannot speak for you, and in this hypothetical situation the only thing I know about a candidate is that they are anti-abortion. If that is all the information that exsists about a candidate, then I will not vote for them. You might, I wont, that’s why we are two separate entities who think with separate minds. Funny how that works.
Silver Owl
No Quarter is not what it used to be. I stopped reading them when they lost their minds during the primary.
Most of the time if I see them pop up on Memeorandum it’s always along the side nuttier of the wingnuts. So I ignore them.
Thanks for the refresher on why No Quarter is No Sense in my book.
TheFountainHead
Poor TZ.
Shinobi
Srlsy?
After being called traitors for 8 years for not wanting to go to war and torture people, we’re going to have to listen to you play the victim because you’re asking about tangential associations of a politician with some old guy.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Flailing.
Loss of down.
demimondian
@Shinobi: Perhaps I misread the original meta-question, but I don’t recall seeing anything which said the politician was anti-abortion, only that the supporter was a radical anti-abortion terrorist. If I’m wrong, and that was hypothesized, then, of course, you’re right.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
But don’t we have the right to mock your precious concern trolling in a manner of our own precious choosing? Personally, I prefer raving nonsense, while I have noticed that many others lean towards ad hominem invective.
Isn’t this what makes America, and Balloon Juice in particular, such a keen-o place?
Shinobi
demimondian:
Perhaps you are right. I read it hastily. Just to be clear I generally would base my decision on the candidate’s views and actions, and not the views or actions of people who are trying to help him get elected.
TheFountainHead
Was there pie? I only go to the meetings when pie is promised, so I might have missed that one too.
demimondian
@Paragon park: Concern troll is concerned.
First, murky, dark "questions" that you’re don’t want to list, because you know what will happen if you do. Then, cornered, you come up with one, only to have it shown that the question is asked and answered, exactly as you expected. Then, "well, what about an anti-abortion activist?" Clever dodge, but we’re old hands here, and some of us have good answers for that. Now, the victim card. "Poor me, I’m being told that I’m acting foolish, just because I’m being a fool."
Um, yeah, dude. Listen, I know you want to make this a personal rights kind of thing, but there’s a problem with that. First, we’re not the government, and we have as much right to point and laugh as any other people do. Second, and more painful to you, you’re not being censored — nobody here would tolerate asking to have you banned, for instance — you’re just being told the truth in a way you don’t like.
Sorry, your rights to control speech about you or your reputation are quite strictly limited to false speech. If you don’t want people to say mean, but true, things about you — change the truth of the statements.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Haven’t you been paying attention? You’re not supposed to ask questions.
No pie for you.
D-Chance.
Posted without comment: the latest auto industry advertisement.
The Moar You Know
@libarbarian: No, but it would be funny as hell.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
In the words of Barack’s upcoming inaugural address:
Chill the fuck out, I got this.
Paragon park
I did not state the politician’s position on abortion. It is not really central to the issue.
I merely picked abortion because it was an example off the top of my head where extremists have resorted to violence.
The issue for our purposes is the person’s violence not the cause which motivated him to violence
demimondian
@The Moar You Know: He’s right, of course.
For my part, though, I’m appalled — simply appalled, I tell you! — that President-Elect Obama has spent years associating with a known former Klan member, visiting him in his office, and even providing direct support for him. I’m sure that he’ll be disavowing his association with Sen. Byrd any day now.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Hmmm…I sure that this will engender even more potentially troubling, yet unstated questions.
Hypothetically speaking, this is very, very troubling.
Paragon park
You guys might consider yourselves old hands, but only at preaching to the choir.
I’ve stated the querstions very clearly numerous times now and you kjeep avoiding addressing those questions choosing instead either to cuss me out or congratulate each other on your wicked smarts. I actually do appreciate the latter because I would have had no idea of the formidable brilliance extant here without the warning.
Shinobi
Wasn’t the whole purpose of this hypothetical to determine that the cause was irrelevant? Otherwise, why even have the hypothetical? I thought the purpose was to see if the crazy people here would similarly defend someone they disagreed with?
Concern troll is confused.
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
Concern troll also uses large words to make himself seem worldly and impartial, yet still somehow fails miserably.
Punchy
Paragon is seems very concerned.
tomjones
@Kilkee: Someone should check to see if the tradition is different for Africans.
The Moar You Know
OMG CENSORSHIP
I saw what you did there.
Bush Administration, 2001 onwards, in those exact words.
Man, TZ really does get the shit jobs.
For me it’s booze. Each to his own. Alcohol is my anti-drug.
wolfetone
Ack, Sysadmin of Evil:
"Hell, Laura Bush has killed more people than Bill Ayers."
That’s ‘effin hilarious. So funny, in fact, that I just created the Facebook group, Laura Bush has killed more people than Bill Ayers. Look it up and join!
Shygetz
You’re right. I immediately call upon Barack Obama to denounce any association with FDR and his violence against German and Japanese, regardless of the cause which motivated him to violence.
P.S. Saying "You’re a moron" is not ad hominem, it’s just name-calling. Saying "You’re a moron, and therefore your argument is automatically wrong" is an ad hominem. Learn the difference.
Moron.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Well you know what they say, doing the same thing over and over and getting the same result …. Ca-RAY-zee!
Try some different questions, like, "What the beejeezus was I thinking?"
Rick Taylor
Off topic, and everyone here probably reads Digby anyway, but this latest post got me seething again. In responding to Democrats who want to give aid to people who are loosing their houses:
Of course paying off banks that got us into this mess is one thing, rewarding those irresponsible home owners is quite another! And before Thymezone chimes in, yes we did need to do something, and while I wish the administration had worked to ensure the banks used more of the money we lent them to make loans rather than pay shareholders, the bailout we did was better than nothing. That doesn’t mean I have to ignore the rank hypocrisy of today’s "conservatives."
Catsy
Because you’re not asking real questions. Getting the answers isn’t the point here, asking the questions and getting people to worry about them is. The answers have already been exhaustively given, you just don’t like them.
Everyone, gather ’round. If you want to know how to make it painfully obvious that you’re a moby concern troll trying to sound like one of the guys, I present you with Exhibit A, guaranteed to undermine your premise and make you a laughingstock regardless of anything else you say.
It’s not unpatriotic to ask questions, it’s risible to ask stupid questions to which you already have an answer anyway. Hence why we’re mocking you. It’s like finding a huge, steaming turd in the bowl that someone failed to flush: you could just ignore it, flush it, and be on about your business, but it’s so much more entertaining to raise a hue and cry about the size of the loaf and ask who left this offering to the sun god.
Shinobi
How could you fail to be impressed by his formidable brilliance?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Yeah, but I just remember the benefits and the covered parking.
TenguPhule
Anyone who is a pirate shall be put to death.
Anyone who associates with a pirate shall be put to death.
Anyone who knows anyone who associates with a pirate shall be put to death.
Congratulations, we’re a Disney film.
gwangung
Wrong.
And we keep mocking STUPIDITY.
Stop being stupid and we won’t mock your for being too dumb to notice your questions have been answered (or too dishonest to ignore those answers).
TenguPhule
Let us suppose Republicans are morons.
Now let us suppose they are not.
*
Chuck Colson:William Ayers::Bush:Obama?
Chuck Colson:Carla Faye Tucker::Christianist:Christian?
Paragon park
Yes, whether people would defend a politician with whom they disagree in analogous circumstances was the point. abortio, though, is not the only issue where right-wing crazies might resort to violence. I could have just as easily said the activist conspired to assault gays or conspired to bomb a pro-immigration rally or whatever.
Abortion itself has nothing to do with the dilemma being posed.
The question is as you suggested whether we have one standard that applies to all polticians or we care about whose ox is being gored.
Does anyone just want to say that its Ok to associate with people who have used violence for politcal purposes and that no politician should ever be questioned about it because there is nothing wrong with doing so?
Or. is there a statute of limitation? Is it OK to network with an ex-KKK bomber now if he hasn’t been violent since the freedom rides?
So far, I’m at a loss to determine what any of you realy believe, except that you hate to have your self-congratulatory cicle jerks interrupted with challenging questions.
les
Umm, wrong. Got any more sincerely stupid assertions? Remind me not to read your book.
tomjones
@Paragon park: So far, though, you’re just dancing in circles. The question is not whether Obama knew Ayers was a reformed domestic terrorist, but instead, what is the harm in knowingly associating with a reformed domestic terrorist?
If it indeed is a harm, then what do we do with the countless other Chicagoans – among them many Republicans – and former students of Ayers, all of whom are guilty of this dastardly…association?
I guess someone who took Prof. Ayers’ ‘Teaching for Dummies 101’ class 10 years ago should be shadowed by this damning fact for the rest of their days? Should Courts accept "fraternization with Prof. Ayers" as a legal ground for divorce? Someone needs to codify this, STAT!
Zam
screwed that up
tomjones
@jake 4 that 1: Oops, you beat me to it. =)
Zam
OT but, I found this interesting
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Paragon park –
OK, I’ll try to take this seriously for just one precious moment here.
You seem to want answers to questions that it seems have already been adequately addressed by President-elect Obama to the extent and degree they deserved. I say "adequately addressed" because there is no resounding hue and cry for "more" on this issue, except perhaps from the outer districts of Wingnuttia. When you keep pushing for "more" here you don’t exactly sound like the Voice of Reason or even a well-intentioned, but slow-to-catch on observer, but more like a pedantic fool.
Now, you are perfectly free to continue to believe you deserve a fuller and more detailed explanation…perhaps Obama’s day planner for the past 40+ years would sate your appetite for "more". Fine, but I doubt it is forthcoming, and the rest of us have already moved on, because…now try to follow me here, there really are a lot more important things going on in and around P-E Obama’s plate and most of us are a lot more interested in hearing about that than in dredging up baseless, silly and totally irrelevant campaign allegations.
Does any of this compute?
OK, I hope you’re happy now – I’ve wasted several precious minutes being serious when I could have been just as happy spewing out more derisive, raving nonsense.
demimondian
@TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst): You know, I don’t agree with you. PP doesn’t sound like a pedantic fool — that’s more my speed — but like a disingenuous Artful Dodger, trying to pick a few intellectual pockets of the coin of trust by verbal misdirection.
(Oh, look, a jackalope!)
bago
You looser, than Paris Hilton! HA!
srv
Seems that some illegals have been cleaning the home of oh, Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff.
Clown shoes, clown cars… Republicans are really just a Clown Écouter.
Someone should remake Fellini’s 8 1/2 and have the Bush administration star.
R-Jud
@ jake4that1:
Crap. I sat through two talks with him while I was Teachin’ for America. It was 7 years ago, but I believe the gist was that a) teaching carries an important social responsibility just like medicine or law; and b) you can’t teach kids self-esteem, you have to challenge them to do hard things so they develop it naturally.
Thank heavens I am not susceptible to brainwashing, or I would have absorbed the REAL message of these talks, which apparently were that a) teachers must instill a love of socialism in their charges by b) training them to build bombs. Because that’s hard for six-year-olds, what with all the fiddly little wires and their lack of fine motor skills and whatnot. Certainly they’d feel confident in their abilities after doing something like that.
In re all the proposed inauguration shenanigans Obama could engage in, I personally think that when asked to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, he should reply: "Step off, I’m doin’ the Hump!"
And then the dancing would start.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
Yeah, I’m happy to say that.
If you can point to some tangible evidence that said politician’s views and/or actions are influenced by said association, then that would be a discussion. In this case, you have no such evidence, NONE, so you have nothing except "he knew the guy", i.e. you have nothing.
Joshua Norton
In my f*cked up way, I was trying to say that. I meant that the grandson would be II if his father wasn’t named after the grandfather and no one else in the family had used the name yet.
I made a valiant effort to edit my first post for clarification but I kept getting an error message saying that I wasn’t authorized to do that. Obviously Cole is capriciously censoring me. (/snark)
John PM
Yes. That meeting was held on September 12, 2001, and the decision that asking questions is unpatriotic was ratified by the Congress when it passed the USA PATRIOT Act.
Bill Ayers initially protested the Vietnam War like thousands of others during the 1960s. Frustrated by his failure to effect any change through these protests, Ayers and a few other like-minded individuals decided to start bombing government buildings. They placed a few bombs that caused property damage only. Of course, had people been present when the bombs went off and these people died, then Ayers and his associates would have been guilty of murder. The Weathermen stopped the bombings when one of the bombs they were working on exploded and killed several of them. Ayers and his wife then went on the run for several years. As others have mentioned on this site, Ayers and his wife were never prosecuted for their crimes because the FBI illegally obtained the evidence that could have been used to convict them. Ayers and his wife have since gone on to obtain advanced degrees and become fixtures in the Chicago community.
I think the ultimate question that people are trying to get at when raising Ayers is the following:
Mr. President-elect, had you been the same age as Ayers in the 1960s and 1970s, would you have become a member of the Weather Underground?
Essentially, by bringing up Ayers, people are trying to use Ayers actions in the 1960s and 1970s to say that Obama hates America. Of course, the major assumption in this question is that Ayers and the other members of the Weather Underground hated America. This assumption appears highly questionable, given that Ayers and his wife remained in the United States rather than move to the Soviet Union or (heaven forbid) France. Ayers, like thousands of other people in the 1960s, was protesting what he viewed to be the illegal actions of the United States government in Vietnam by both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. I do not think that Ayers ever hated America, but rather hated what the government was doing in Vietnam in the name of the American people. Certain people assume that he "hated" America because he questioned the actions of the government.
This brings us back to your quote above. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions, despite the governments attempts over the past 40 years to muzzle dissent. However, people, such as the commenters here, also have the right to question to basis/reason you are asking the questions.
JD Rhoades
Because you follow the wingnut playbook to a T.
1. Never have the balls to actually come out and make an accusation, just talk about vague "troubling questions".
2. Refuse to accept the answers to your "questions."
3. When called on your bullshit, whine about how everyone’s trying to repress you and violate your free speech rights, segueing into:
4. "It’s liberals who are the real enemies of free speech!"’
Sorry, pal, but when you quack like a duck, the duck hunters are going to take some shots at you.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
But…but…but…I looked up "pedantic" in my Thesaurus and it seemed like the right word to me. Nevertheless, never let it be said that I can sometimes be pedantic, even though there is probably a lot more truth to that than I am comfortable acknowledging, so I will gracefully cede this point to you. P Park does seem to possess several A-Dodger traits, but he (or she) really oughta know that there is very little to be gained around here poking around our pockets for coins of trust. Try it and you’re more likely to end up with sticky stuff on your fingers, and I don’t know about you, but I usually go "Eew" when that happens to me.
Could somebody hand me a Kleenex?
ninerdave
@The Moar You Know:
Stop trying to class this place up! What’s wrong with you?
Paragon park
Tom Jones:
Well, if you don’t believe it is wrong to choose to associate with a known "domestic terrorirt" for personal advantage just say that is your opinion. yuo are entitled to it. Others are, of course entitled to the opinion that people should not condone such actions bty choosing to associate with people who commit them and that it is duplicitous to SAY you don’t condone them but choose not to condemen them by refusing to reward those who have engaged in them by lending your association to them.
I’m of the opinion, that yes, other people who knew of his past and have willingly chosen to associate with Ayers and help him become prosperous and influential have shown very poor judgment. You are free to disagree. I would not count people who merely took a class from him among that number but those who hired him, nurtured his career and willingly collaborated on projects (even worthy ones) are in my opinion, expressing at least implicitly that one can evade accoutability for bad acts so long as he shares social or political biases. I think there is great harm to society in allowing such situational ethics to override basic moral values.
ASS:
So just because you don’t care about something that means anyone who does care about it is automatically wrong and has evil motives?
Ack, Sysadmin of Evil
wolfetone,
That’s funny. If I belonged to Facebook, I’d join.
Punchy
/unzips pants, frantically searches for invitation and car keys
TheFountainHead
Paragon Put Another Way:
People who have important jobs shouldn’t work with other people who are evil assholes.
No WONDER we have a flailing economy!! There are too many assholes!!
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
To briefly answer your question: Never said that.
What I did say was, well, exactly what I said:
What part of that is confusing to you?
Just Some Fuckhead
Maybe they should put everyone who ever associated with Ayers on the No Fly list. For that matter, I wonder if Ayers is on the No Fly list? I can’t imagine a more dangerous place for him to have a terroring relapse.
The Moar You Know
You’re not supposed to give away our methods!
Nah, in seriousness, you’re right. They always follow the same pattern, the behavior of the trolling wingnut is as predictable as a stripper telling you that you seem like a really nice guy and you’re obviously not like all the other guys who come in there.
Face
Can I get this translated? What is this, a quintuple negative?
JD Rhoades
Wait, what are you telling me? Ambyr really DOESN’T think I’m a great guy?
Just did! Heh…
demimondian
@Face: Sure. Here’s the translation:
Paragon park
No, I obviously don’t believe Ayers has influenced Obama to believe that resorting to violence is a morally acceptable way to express political dissent. i wouldn’t have voted for him had I believed that.
Where we part company is your apparent belief that such associations only matter if the politician’s beliefs are influenced to accept violence as a legitimate political tactic. I think the probelm is that the politician helps the violent actor by being associated with him and that the lesson we want taught is that those who resort to violence to further political goals will be shunned and excluded from influence because such conduct has no place in society. By weakening that message a politician shows poor judgment and opens himself to questions as to whetewr his personal ambition overwhelms his desire to do what is right.
(Again, I am not convinced Obama knew the extent of Ayers indefensible actions in the past. I do think he should answer the questions of whether he did or not. If he knew then some people’s opinions about him might be affected and I see no reason why he should be permitted not to answer such a simple question just because a few blog commenters seem to feel they get to decide what everyone else should consider important.)
Davebo
Sarah Palin pals around with known felons, and refuses to call for their resignation from government.
So she’s out.
And Bobby Jindal? Trust me, you don’t want know the kind of creeps that dude has snuggled up with over the years in LA.
We’re talking serious Coon Ass Mafia types…
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Sorry, but that’s never not gonna happen.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
Proof please.
Be specific.
Catsy
And yet despite this, you voted for this man who, in your opinion, had very poor judgment–not only in the primaries, when you (as a progressive, of course!) had a chance to choose someone better, but in the general, when you had the chance to choose between a flawed war hero and a man who associates with terrorists. This was your last chance to prevent a terrorist-lover from taking the highest office in the land, and you blew it.
You’re either a liar, or have shown very poor judgment.
The Moar You Know
@ninerdave: I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious by now.
As for "classing the place up", I think Ettiquette should be one of a few required books in every American household as well as required reading in high school; it helps to have a base set of rules of social interaction to fall back on when one’s brilliant mind runs into an unexpected situation.
Take poor Punchy’s crisis above – we’re all having a self-congratulatory circle jerk and he’s lost his invitation. What to do? Well, if Punchy had a copy of Emily Post he’d know exactly how to handle the situation.
Genine
You haven’t posed any fucking challenging questions. You just keep going on and on about Obama explaining his full relationship with Ayers and that topic has already and answered and discussed to exhaustion. If the answers aren’t good enough for you- fine. I don’t give a fuck and neither does most of America.
From what I can determine you want Obama to say a particular sentence and that will satisfy you. I wanted to win Powerball yesterday; disappointment abounds.
If hearing something in particular is SOOOOOOOOO important to you, write President-Elect Obama a letter and see if he responds.
Me, personally, I am more concerned with what a person does now. Many people have done things in their past that aren’t good. Some things are considered worse than others. But if they turn it around, do some good and work to make the world a better place. I am willing to forgive. Compassion and forgiveness; those are MY moral values.
=================
Maybe those that gave him a job, hired him, put him on boards did so because of his social work. He does a lot of work with education, lower income families and lots of very worthwhile social projects. That’s part of the reason Anneberg’s organization tapped him for the board he and Obama worked on, its why he continues to work with other non-profits and charities.
Maybe they don’t like the fact that he has not apologized for his past actions, but he does a lot of good and has good ideas and (I assume) very capable in his work.
I am not sure what the reasoning is. But I think there could be more to why people associate with Ayers than just saying its for personal/political advantage. If that’s what you want to think- fine. But I think there is a possibility that there are other reasons besides shared political biases.
demimondian
@Paragon park: Nope. Can’t have things both ways — either the associations are important enough to worry about or they aren’t. You’ve painted yourself into a corner: if Obama shared *any* of Ayers repulsive beliefs, then *you should not have voted for him*. If you felt that he actually did, and you voted for Obama anyway, then I can offer you no comfort; you really should be ashamed of yourself.
The rest of us? We looked at the evidence when it first came out, and decided that the Ayers association was unfortunate, but that there was no reasonable connection demonstrated between Ayers’ past and Obama’s present — and moved on with our lives. Had any such evidence shown up, we’d have repudiated him; we’ve certainly repudiated others of equal potential in the past. (Look at what this crowd did with Robert Kennedy, Jr. if you need evidence.)
So, you have two choices: man up, and accept your decision, and stop whining. Or don’t. If you choose the latter, though, expect to be treated as you deserve, with little or no mercy.
libarbarian
Les – No, I’m right.
Now go fuck yourself :).
Joshua Norton
Klaatu barada nikto
t jasper parnell
@Paragon park:
The problem with this position is, of course, that Obama did not give any imprimatur to Ayers UC and Annenberg did. UC is an outstanding and upstanding pillar of the American academic world ditto Anennenberg. It was they who rehabilitated Ayers. If you are angry at those who rehabilitate unrepentant domestic terrorists direct your rage at those who did not at Obama.
Second "association" is a loaded or potentially loaded word. In this case, Obama’s association with Ayers occurred in the context of totally legitimate, nationally, and internationally recognized and well respected institutions. Or in the context of appealing to a key group in Chicago’s political scene. It is not as if Obama and Ayer’s skulked around in alleyways plotting to poison mom and apple pie with their hymns of hate and such like.
JD Rhoades
Does anybody here REALLY believe P.P. voted for Obama? I think this raises legitimate questions about whether Paragon Park is an RNC shill and may, in fact, be Mike Huckabee. I’m not saying he is, I’m just saying it raises questions.
Paragon park
How many times do I have to say that I don’t believe that Obama was aware of Ayers’ direct involvement with violence.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize that thus far he has not made a clear statement on that issue. It also doesn’t mean I think asking him to make a clear statement is improper.
i think some of you have accidentally suggested why he refuses to be more forthcoming. I think he believes–or is being advised– that whatever answer he gives will be used against him. I have no doubt that is true, but i think he is seriously miscalculating if he he thinks he will suffer more harm from simply stating he got involved with Ayers without understanding his past will harm him ore than continuing to be ambiguous and allow the questions to persist.
Sure the right will attack him for failing to adequately vet Ayers’ past before associatting with him. But, that’s lame and no one who is not adamantly and irrevocably opposed to Obama will find that complaint persuasive. A lot more people will begin to doubt him if he allows the questions to fester and he will perpetuate the issue and allow his opponents to keep it alive if he remains coy.
JD Rhoades
I think Paragon Park’s refusal to address the legitimate questions as to whether he is an RNC shill (and may, in fact, be Mike Huckabee) speaks volumes, don’t you?
libarbarian
The Goddamn Greenwich Village Explosion.
They were making a bomb to kill people. It exploded killing the bomb-makers. THEN, Ayers and the remaining leadership decided "from now on we won’t try to kill any more people".
40 years later he says "we never tried to kill people". He lied.
Ack, Sysadmin of Evil
I prefer to think of Paraquat Park as Mickey Kaas’ goat.
Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to, and is central to my point. also.
Paragon park
I am a registered independent who has never voted for a Republican candidate for national office (I have voted R in some state and local races).
It speaks volumes about the level of discourse here that so many people who disagree with me cannot express themselves in any meaningful way and can merely attempt to discredit my arguments with name-calling (to the bozo above that IS what "ad hominem attack" means) or with totally bogus assertion I must be a Republican because i don’t choose to be a mindless drone.
les
Let me second the previous request for evidence. Thanks for answering my question re additional baseless assertions.
TR
I still have questions about PP’s grandfather’s goat fucking.
Correction — alleged goat fucking. But oh, I still have questions! So many questions! They burn!!!!
JD Rhoades
Paragon Park has failed to make a clear statement on the issue of whether he is an RNC shill and may, in fact, be Mike Huckabee.
So long as he refuses to come clean with Balloon Juice, the questions will remain.
The Other Steve
I have a dream.
That one day we shall judge politicians based upon the content of their character, and not the quality of the 60’s radicals they once met.
libarbarian
Frankly, I don’t care about Obamas "connections" to Ayers unless someone can show me evidence that they meant something bad about Obama. I have no sympathy for people using Ayers as a foil for slandering Obama.
I also have no sympathy for Ayers himself – he is a worthless subhuman piece of shit whose life has no value to me whatsoever.
les
Granting for the sake of the discussion that you actually made any "arguments," I believe you have this backwards. Few, if any, commenters said that because you are clearly a feckless dweeb, said "arguments" are discredited. Rather, the common response is that since your "arguments" are such obvious uninformed swill, you must be a feckless dweeb. That’s not ad hominem, that’s deductive logic.
libarbarian
Les,
Hilzoy said it well
If you want to believe that they were making a nail-bomb to set off at a dance …. but didn’t intend to hurt people, then, I have a giant fucking bridge to sell you.
Atanarjuat
Paragon Park, as you’ve already observed, no one is permitted to ask questions that challenge liberal orthodoxy. Sure, most BJ’ers here claim to come from diverse backgrounds and supposedly differ from each other just enough to not come off as lockstep drones of a Liberal Hive Mind — but when push comes to shove, that’s exactly what the leftists here reveal themselves to be. The overheated, invective-filled pile-on you’re currently enduring is direct evidence of this behavior among the regulars here.
Had you instead stated that Obama is "da man" and gratuitously slammed a conservative or two as a "wingnut," you’d be high-fived, given some fortified Kool-Aid to drink, and welcome with open arms into Jonestown… er, I mean, Balloon-Juice.
Paragon park
I can actually respect, although I disagree with, people who simply state the opinion that they think it is OK to associate knowingly with someone who resorted to terrorist acts. That’s a position that requires no contortions, evasions or duplicitous double-talk. If that’s waht you believe, that’s what you believe and you can say so with no apologies.
It’s where a politician doesn’t give one of the two clear answers ("I did it and I believe it is proper" or "I didn’t do it because I didn’t know" ) that I believe the questions should continue to be asked.
I’m going to assume the answer won’t be: "Yeah, I knew and did it anyway, but I was wrong to do it." I assume that because I doubt if it is true and even if it is true he wouldn’t say it.
The problem is that by not being forthright he allows people to say the latter against him.
Xenos
What do we really know about the Greenwich Village bomb? The people building it are dead. Has anyone who was not killed by it stated what the bomb was for? Any of transcripts from the illegal wiretaps indicate that this was the case?
I was three years old when that bomb went off, so forgive my ignorance. But where does the evidence regarding the attempt to bomb the USO come from? And among all the Mark Felt generated crookedness around the Weatherman has it ever been determined who the agents provocateurs were and what role they may have had in the Greenwich Village bomb?
TR
Atanarjuat is a parody, people.
Stick with PP, who seems to be the real thing.
libarbarian
Phase 1: Set off Bombs
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: End Vietnam war.
This isn’t a plan. Its a pathetic excuse for a bunch of spoiled brats to indulge in an emotional attachment to violence.
And the people who buy the "it was for a noble cause" bullshit is are incredibly fucking stupid.
Joshua Norton
I find him quite enjoyable. All the comments I read are about how much he likes pie.
Atanarjuat
A parody of WHAT, TR? Try writing for clarity next time.
J.D. Rhoades
I understand that the African Press International has a videotape of Paragon Park’s grandmother stating that he is a paid RNC shill and is, in fact, Mike Huckabee. We are negotiating with them as we speak for the release of the tape. Please send your contributions to help with this effort.
It should be noted that had P.P. not ignored the legitimate questions raised and had been more forthright, we could have put this issue to rest long ago.
The Moar You Know
I’m bored now. This new troll sucks.
libarbarian
Because there is NO FUCKING PURPOSE FOR PUTTING SHRAPNEL IN BOMBS EXCEPT TO INCREASE THE DAMAGE TO FLESH!
Shrapnel doesn’t do much to increase damage to property but it does a whole fucking lot to increase the damage to human beings in the area of an explosion.
If you REALLY want to think that they were wrapping Dynamite in nails for no fucking reason, however, then I really can’t stop you.
TR
Of a right-wing moron. You’re doing a brilliant job.
Atanarjuat
The Moar You Know said:
You do know there’s more meaning to this mortal coil than surfing liberal Web sites to reaffirm your undying hatred for conservatives, right?
demimondian
@Atanarjuat: Indeed. So why are you here?
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
That wasn’t Ayers. And that wasn’t what he said.
So once again, proof please.
Be specific.
Xenos
@libarbarian: I know what a shrapnel bomb is. I was wondering how we know who decided to build it, how we know what the target was, whether the FBI had placed agents in the Weathermen organization, and so on.
Paragon park
If some of you choose to defend Ayers’ actions with regard to bombing plans that’s your right. I’d remind you that is not Obama’s position and you probably don’t help him by mixing a defense of Obama with a defense of Ayers.
It seems to me that the effort to DISTANCE Obama from Ayers is a slight bit smarter than attepmting to DEFEND Ayers. Not everyone will buy the distancing efforts until Obama speaks clearly and forthrightly about it, but it’s a safe assumption that an overwhelming majority of people of all political persuasions will reject the attempts to justify or minimize what Ayers did.
With friends like this, Obama doesn’t need …..
theturtlemoves
Didn’t some guy that many wingnuts now worship as a God or something once associate openly with prostitutes and tax collectors and other assorted scum? In my defense, I do think Ayer’s is an asshat and teaching at an Ed School just solidifies that.
Preemptive Wingnut response/ See, the Obamabots think he’s Jesus now! /End Preemptive Wingnut response
t jasper parnell
@Paragon park:
So, then at least some of your questions have been answered, eh?
demimondian
@t jasper parnell: No, all of his questions have been answered.
He’s trying to play dynamite in the distance, but I wouldn’t say he was doing a bang-up job of it.
les
Since the "until" has already happened to the satisfaction of the sane, the "Not everyone" seems to be you and NoQuarter. Nice company you keep, if limited in size, judgment and intellect.
t jasper parnell
@demimondian: Of course all his questions have been answered, time and time again, but here or rather there we see him admitting it. Thus the distant dynamite moves closer and by his own petard he is hoist, as it were.
Atanarjuat
demimondian said:
1.) I’m not the one who claimed to be bored, and
2.) I don’t have an undying hatred for conservatives.
This has been another edition of SATSQ. You’re welcome.
bago
That ain’t the only thing!
The 60’s, Heyo!
Why are you all looking at me like I’m completely irrelevant?
libarbarian
Zuzu, he was a ranking official in the organization. He wasn’t there when the bomb blew up but I do not believe for a second that he didn’t know what his fucking girlfriend, who died in the explosion, was up to.
It’s obvious that your demand for proof is about as honest as the wingnut demand for proof of Obamas citizenship. Ayers in on your team and you will defend that piece of shit come hell or high water. I’m not wasting any more time talking to someone who has no intention of being honest with others or themselves.
Xenos,
So you don’t dispute that the purpose of the bomb was to hurt people, not property?
THAT is the issue at hand – not whether the Gov’t did unethical things too. They did. I don’t dispute that.
Legally, it matters if it was an "agent provocateur" (the presence of whom are alleged but not supported with evidence), but morally it doesn’t. I just don’t care if the person who proposed the plot was a gov’t agent or a real radical. The people agreed to go along with it knowing full well that it would probably result in the death and maiming of people whose only crime was wearing a uniform.
Like I said:
Phase 1: Set off Bombs
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: End Vietnam war.
Is NOT a fucking plan to end a war. Its a pathetic excuse for a bunch of spoiled brats to indulge in an emotional attachment to violence.
Shit – all the Columbine shooters had to do was wait a few years and then claim to be protesting Iraq and we’d have fucking morons singing their praises.
demimondian
@Atanarjuat: I know what you’ve *said*. So, again, why are you still here?
J.D. Rhoades
The scandal deepens as Paragon Park continues to refuse to speak clearly and forthrightly as to whether he is a paid RNC shill and whether or not he is, in fact, Mike Huckabee. We do know that he has apparently voted for Republican candidates in the past, but he has not yet spoken out to specifically distance himself from the RNC or Mike Huckabee.
What is Paragon Park hiding? What is he afraid of? Stay tuned.
Comrade Stuck
@Paragon park:
You should take your questions to the Annenberg Foundation, since most of these shady associations of Obama and Ayers occurred on their nickel and blessing to have Ayers aboard. You could even ask Old Man Annenberg himself, but he’s probably playing a game of wingnut golf with his old pal tricky Dick Nixon (AKA Weathermen hater) on that big course high in the sky. Maybe when you depart you can, and then report back to us.
Guilt by association is a two way street big guy.
TR
Unless you’re typing this from 2004, he already has.
Mnemosyne
So we should have cut off diplomatic relations with South Africa when former terrorist Nelson Mandela was elected president? After all, by acknowledging Mandela as the legitimate leader of South Africa, we were condoning his past violent actions.
Atanarjuat
demimondian said:
Oh, I see, you’re asking a question completely unrelated to what I remarked to the other BJ’er.
Fine, I’ll play along.
I’ve given a more elaborate answer twice in the past (which you must have missed), but here’s the Reader’s Digest version: I’m here because I want to be.
SATSQ, in full effect.
TenguPhule
Nominated for longest sentence to say nothing with everything.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Is there a decoder ring? No matter how I parse this I can’t make any sense of it.
demimondian
@Atanarjuat: Ah. OK, so you’re here because there’s nothing more important in your life than "surfing liberal Web sites to reaffirm your undying hatred for conservatives".
I see.
t jasper parnell
@libarbarian:
This is wrong, I mean your suggestion about Phase 2. The idea was to force the state to become even more and more "openly" repressive which would then cause the scales to fall from the eyes of the masses. This strategic goal for the tactical use of terror was common to many of the urban guerrillas in the late 60s and 70s.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
In other words, you pulled the whole thing out of your ***.
Got it.
Mnemosyne
I should be clear up-front that Ayers has always struck me as a spoiled rich boy who played at being a "revolutionary" until people he knew died and he went running back to Daddy for help. It’s easy to put these things behind you when you have plenty of money to sweep things under the rug.
I’d just like to point out that, by your construction above, the Sears Tower "terrorists" who were fully funded and pushed along by a government informant and still couldn’t get their shit together enough to buy the head shop that was going to finance their activities should go to prison for the rest of their lives. Sure, they were pushed into actions they couldn’t have accomplished on their own by the government, but they still talked big and thought about maybe doing things if they were able to put down the bong long enough. And if they had managed to get explosives, they might have hurt someone. Therefore, they’re just as bad as al-Qaeda.
That seems a little disproportionate to me, as does blaming Ayers personally for a plot that (a) never materialized and (b) that he claims (after the fact, of course) he never agreed with.
I will give Ayers this one tiny bit of credit — I do think that the explosion that killed his colleagues scared the crap out of him and woke him up to what he was really doing and the dangerous path he was going down, which is why he quit and went underground.
t jasper parnell
Meaning: I can so construe Obama’s civic minded actions as condoning acts committed by someone else if I want and neither reason nor decency can make me stop.
demimondian
@Zuzu’s Petals: Zuzu, it strains credulity to assert that Ayers and co. didn’t intend to harm people. Building shrapnel bombs serves one purpose: killing people.
Seriously, go read _Steal this book_ (something I did during my childhood in the sixties). It includes recipes for cyanide pellets *along with the explicit wish for someone to administer mouth-to-mouth to the victim, thus poisoning themselves, as well*. The Weathermen were every bit as awful as people say.
The Moar You Know
@Atanarjuat: Oh yeah. Don’t you worry about me. This is not a large part of how I spend my day; there’s a reason they call me the Sexecutioner, you know.
I hold no hatred for conservatives; my last girlfriend was one. I used to make her scream "I love liberal dick" as loud as she could. Got some weird looks from the neighbors about that, but what the heck. But she got annoying after a while with all the stupid Ayn Rand books and the Coulter fetish and whatnot, so I shitcanned her.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
You, sir, are full of shit. That’s where we start. And second, you are just trolling, context shifting, morphing questions to keep them just out of the answer stream, employing an assortment of mindfucks that we have all seen and laughed at before.
Your problem is, you don’t listen. You just keep shifting the harangue slightly to fit the last bitchslap you got.
Do you have an end game strategy here? Where do you think this is going? I personally tend to work 4-6 posts ahead of realtime here, it would behoove you to get ahead of the curve a little. Otherwise you are in serious danger of becoming a skid mark on the thong of blogdom here.
TenguPhule
There are not enough cereal boxes in the universe to help on this one.
TenguPhule
I knew you were going to post that. :P
Comrade Stuck
Wingnut meme for Holiday’s
Obama = Terrorist sympathizer
Obama = Censor
Obama = Blago Corruption
Wingnut Christmas Spirit = Like a Bad Santa, or a good whoppin’, or Raaaain on your Wedding Day.
Zuzu's Petals
@demimondian:
This person made a very specific claim about William Ayers and what he "tried" to do. Not William Ayers "and co." If he or she simply wanted to make an observation about the group or the movement, that’s one thing, but to make a claim about the actual activities of one individual based only on his or her "belief" absent real proof…sorry, that’s BS.
I have read "Steal this Book," thanks. It wasn’t written by the WU, by the way.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I knew it so long ago, I had forgotten already.
But cereally, wait until you see Paragon’s fourth post from now.
OMFG! It’s a classic.
libarbarian
No. I draw common sense conclusion from available evidence.
You dishonestly ask for a level of proof you know is impossible and would never ask for if a rightwinger were accused of something like this. You would be right with me then. Ayers is a leftie though, and like other mindless political hacks, you wont say anything bad about a member of your team.
=======================================
demimondian,
zuzu knows Ayers wanted people killed. Zuzu sympathizes with Ayers desires. Zuzu is lying her ass off about her skepticism.
CT
PP@253:
If you don’t believe Obama a) shares any of Ayers’ radical beliefs, and b) didn’t know about Ayers’ history, then what is left to answer?
Obama’s already given a very simple answer-he made the assumption that respectable society is inviting Ayers to serve on charitable boards and UC gave him a job, he must be rehabilitated.
Your whole premise seems to be that the American people, having found the Ayers thing to be a baseless distraction on the part of the McCain campaign, are suddenly going to start being ‘troubled’ by ‘still unanswered questions’. Which stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.
libarbarian
I hope.
Because if she is honest it means she is too stupid to be allowed to live … and yet, she is.
TenguPhule
Oh Snap.
Crackle and pop.
demimondian
@Zuzu’s Petals: It was written by "close associates". Don’t bs me, lady — I was there, remember?
Atanarjuat
demimondian said:
It would be nice if you did.
Let’s try this one more time:
I didn’t claim to be bored. Had I claimed boredom as TMYK did, I certainly would take my own advice and move on to something else.
As an aside, I’m flattered somewhat that you want to threadjack the topic into a personal one regarding me, but it’s a transparent deflection away from the actual topic at hand, which is focused on Bill Ayers.
As Gold Five said to Gold Leader, "stay on target."
TenguPhule
As Home One said to the Universe in General, "It’s a Trap!"
libarbarian
I specifically separated the legal from the moral.
Legally, that might be entrapment. I dont want the police inventing crimes.
Morally, I think they are "guilty". I dont know about "as guilty as Al-Queda" or any comparison … but I don’t consider them "innocent" if they did agree to try and do this.
libarbarian
I heard Ayers is putting up $1 million for any help finding the "real terrorists".
You can reach him at the Golf course where he’s playing a final round with OJ.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Indeed.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
No, you are focussed on Ayers. The thread is about the inappropriate linking of Obama to Ayers.
Ayers could be Satan, er, I mean, (S)Atan, but that wouldn’t make Obama’s link to him any stronger.
The devil is in the details, as they say.
demimondian
@Atanarjuat: Like I said, I see. It’s pathetic that you still believe your game is funny or clever, but you evidently do.
les
Paragon, why not let The Editors explain the appropriate stance wrt Ayers today?
Zuzu's Petals
@demimondian:
You were there? I thought you said you were a child in the ’60s.
"Steal This Book" was written by Abbie Hoffman, who I guess could qualify as a "close associate" of WU members in some ways. In other ways, he was regarded as a shameless self-promoter who exploited other people’s ideas. For instance, read what the Diggers thought about his publicizing certain free resources that got burned because of the book.
I didn’t remember anything in the book about recipes for cyanide pellet bombs – I do see where it says to never make an anti-personnel shrapnel bomb – much less an "explicit wish for someone to administer mouth-to-mouth to the victim, thus poisoning themselves, as well."
So I found an online version of the book. Maybe you can point out the part you’re talking about:
Steal This Book
Do I think the thing – like plenty of stuff that was written and said back then – is full of macho posturing and even dangerous BS? Sure. I even thought so at the time. I just don’t see a reason to exaggerate things to make a point.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
Yes, I’m sure you have a very common-sense ***.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Uh, I was gonna say that I had seen several longer and more meaningless sentences and note that I knew that because I had written them. But upon a further re-reading I’m going to back away from that statement.
Maybe I’ll try and de-construct that sentence on the fly here.
Shorter version: "One may have the opinion that it’s not OK to make an affirmative decision to associate with someone who you believe has done serious wrong in the past and then say that while you do not condone them you assume a neutral, "no harm, no foul" stance and compounding the passive acceptance of "the evil" by refusing to shun them."
No, that can’t be it, can it?
OK…wash, rinse, repeat – I’ll try again –
"You can think it’s wrong to hang with…"No…uh-uh, not working. I think the problem is a lack of clarity. Just WhoTF is the writer talking about? And that’s not being snarky, it’s really hard to tell.
Attempt#3: "It’s OK for someone (possibly the writer, but for some reason not specifically delineated) for a person to have an "opinion" about another person who may have a moral qualm about a third person’s past actions, but is nonetheless still willing to work or cooperate with this third person. The writer feels strongly that it is wrong to state such a qualm and still continue in such a relationship with that third person. Further, he feels that failing to shun said third person somehow constitutes an implied endorsement of said third person, and by extension, any previous bad actions or intentions that said third person may have been actively involved in. Any broadcast or other commercial use of the preceeding statement without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is expressly prohibited"
{I just made up that last sentence about ML Baseball, you can disregard it}
Is that it? Do I win anything?
I think I have a headache now.
Xenos
@libarbarian: I must not be very clear, or you are determined to misread my questions. I will answer yours in turn:
I do not dispute that- at a legal level of analysis, building an antipersonnel bomb is highly probative of an intent to hurt people. At a moral level there my be some wiggle room – you could, for example, build a nail bomb as a way to show you can build a nail bomb, and could escalate the violence, even if you only bombed an empty room. I have not heard anyone offer such a tendentious defense, and I don’t mean to here, I am just pointing out that a distinction could be made.
Agreed.
But is there any evidence Ayers was that person? It certainly seems likely that he would have known, or should have known, that the Weathermen was escalating to true terrorism. Maybe someone in a position to know has identified Ayers as part of the decision-making group here, maybe he opposed such a step and the bombers went ahead without his knowledge and approval, maybe he directed them to do it and, as a coward, did not show up to help make the bomb.
There is a lot more to know here other than the fact that Ayers was one of the leaders of the Weathermen, and that some Weathermen blew themselves up when they escalated the bombing to serious terrorism. Considering all the illegal wiretaps and so on, why don’t we have a smoking gun here? Or is there a smoking gun that I just don’t know about?
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
Always the high-concept commenter, I see.
gwangung
Why? As continually pointed out, the Annenbergs and the rest of the Chicago Republican Party felt no need. If they associated with Ayers, then Obama should have felt no qualm about associating with him.
You keep ignoring that basic point of the local Establishment’s approval. Hence, you’re arguing in bad faith. Hence you are eminently mockable and are entitled to nothing more than the back of our hands.
Phfffft. You’re nothing more than a clown. Come back with some REAL arguments, not this ill-thought out offal.
Atanarjuat
demimondian said:
I suspect that if I made my point any clearer, using brightly-colored crayons and construction paper, you’d still continue your pretense. You’re twice ignored the content of my reply because you choose not to see. The person I’d originally addressed not only saw what I meant, but he even provided an amusing response filled with good humor — the latter being a virtue you apparently lack.
What’s actually pathetic is that you’ve parroted this lame observation REPEATEDLY, as though frequency would lend more validity to your personal jihad against me.
Anyway, I’ll remember this exchange next time you pretend to ask a "sincere" question, as your ultimate statement will likely be, "your game is not funny or clever." (so there!)
I begin to wonder if you’re suffering from some sort of liberal Tourette’s Syndrome. You have my condolences.
obAyers: I saw Ayers on Hardball, as others here may have, too. My thought was that this supposed ex-domestic terrorist is protesting a bit too much. I wouldn’t be surprised if more digging into his past might reveal other unsavory deeds he was a part of, despite what Ayers’ defenders on BJ might claim otherwise.
The best thing Bill Ayers could have done for himself, as that Palestinian professor at Columbia University did, was to keep his trap shut and avoid the limelight. As it stands now, the public exposure Ayers is garnering for himself would make further investigation into his radical past absolutely fair game.
Xenos
I agree that there is probably a lot more than we will ever know about. But live by the guilt-by-association game, die by the guilt-by-association game. What was Bush doing with domestic enemy of the constitution Chuck Colson? Why he was giving that ratfucker a MEDAL!
Far worse that what anyone has accused Obama of.
The Moar You Know
@libarbarian: Always nice to see someone come out of the closet.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Really?
From my first post to this thread, this morning.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Oh, BTW – if my interpretation of P Park’s dysfunctional sentence (see post #325 in this thread) is correct, I think it’s a POV that I could only accept as having any validity whatsoever under coercion that would meet the accepted definition of "torture".
I think that allowing your mind to develop a thought process that could puke out such a convoluted and overly judgmental opinion about what other people should or shouldn’t perceive is just sad.
If you’re going to fill your own head with crap you should at least make it fun, and you really shouldn’t be all too surprised when other folks recoil from you when you lay it down to them.
And if I misinterpreted your sentence and it really means that I get that pony I’ve always wanted fer XMAS, then, well, never-mind. I really want that pony. I like ponies. And some pie, too. I like pie.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Really? What aspect of that radical past is unknown?
Be specific. If you produce one of those asinine lists of vague "unanswered questions" you will be hoist, skinned, and your penis cut off and used as a doorstop. Or, something along those lines.
Rick Taylor
And as we discuss completely irrelevant matters, it looks like Republicans in the Senate are about to kill the bail out to the auto industry. Good timing, destroying an industry right as we go into what some economists are calling the greatest economic crises since the great depression. And of course as usual, this was after extensive compromises by Democrats. The Republican party is completely bereft of ideas. All I’m hearing form them our bromides about being fiscally conservative again and championing conservative social values (ie. gays can’t get married). They’re on the fast track to complete irrelevancy, but they’re striving to be as obstructive and to do as much damage as they can in the mean time.
Xenos
@Rick Taylor: When I was living in England in the early 80s people would deface Margaret Thatcher’s campaign posters with "3 Million Unemployed". We will be able to write "30 Million unemployed" on GOP posters in a couple years.
t jasper parnell
@Rick Taylor: As I understand the current version of the bill Bush appoints a Car Czar with might powers and little oversight, I’d just asoon he not gain that power.
Zuzu's Petals
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Careful, TZ. Requests to "be specific" seem to trigger the insult reflex in people who refuse to … well, be specific. To the point where they insist you shouldn’t "be allowed to live."
Vague AND techy, those ones.
Catsy
On the chance that there is anyone out there interested in a serious answer to this non-question, the answer is NO: I am not worried about the extent to which Obama might hypothetically have been associated with Ayers, nor am I worried by the extent of their association that is documented as fact. I’m really not bothered at all by the fact that they associated in the contexts in which they did. It might bother me if Obama had him as a senior education adviser of some sort, but more because it would look bad politically than because I think it should somehow reflect badly on Obama’s character that he takes advice from Ayers on a matter completely unrelated to the latter’s wrongdoings.
I have a felony conviction from around 15 years ago, when I was a legal adult but still a stupid kid. Couple of friends and I broke into a school in the middle of the night and stole some stuff. I don’t wave it around, and I’m past the point where I’m required to disclose it on applications and such in my state, but if the subject comes up I’ll say pretty much what I did at the start of this paragraph.
I think it reflects badly on the man I was at the time, but I wouldn’t recognize that man if I saw him in the mirror today. I don’t think it says anything meaningful about who I am today, which is why I’m glad my state has the laws it does. I’m also glad that we do not live in a society so punitive that I’m expected to evangelize in public about how awful what I did was, and how even though I still love computers I shouldn’t have stolen one.
I don’t hold any real animosity towards Ayers, but I don’t think he’s a paragon of humanity either. I think he’s a flawed man who’s done a pretty damn good job of helping his community in the years since the Weathermen were active. I don’t really think it’s my place to weigh his sins against his service, but speaking as a grown man with a criminal record who’s come a long way since then, from where I stand he’s paid his dues, and he’s entitled to be treated as a member of the community he serves.
This is why people like PP are treated with scorn and derision when they start playing the "would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to!" game with Obama and Ayers, expecting to have their so-called questions taken seriously. It’s just a FUD tactic–raising fear, uncertainty and doubt rather than asking a serious question in search of a serious answer.
Atanarjuat
ThymeZoneThePlumber quoted, then said:
In your haste to respond, I think you overlooked the qualifier, "further." I didn’t say there’s an aspect of Ayers radical past that is "unknown." I said exactly what I said: if Ayers keeps placing himself under TV studio lights for the sake of "defending" his good name, people might very well be compelled to dig FURTHER beyond what’s already known. I suspect Ayers may not like that particular outcome, given his checkered past.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
Now that, sir, is some serious plumbing work, and a very workman-like suggestion as well. When you’re down with that part, don’t forget to roto his router.
TenguPhule
They’re on the fast track to complete irrelevancy, but they’re striving to be as obstructive and to do as much damage as they can in the mean time.
They’re on a fast track to be busted by the unions. Complete with concrete shoes and swimming lessons.
Xenos
@TenguPhule: Does the Employee Free Choice Act bust the ‘Right to Work; laws they have in the southern states? That seems a bit much to hope for.
Tim Fuller
Let me clarify my previous thought (NOT ON MY SITE)
It’s ok to allude to the asshats and their obnoxious asshattery, just don’t mention their names. They hate it when you ignore them. On the other hand, ALWAYS mention the names of torturers and war criminals like Bush, Condi, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Addington, etc. when referring to the subject.
I’m guess ABC probably stands for All Blogo Channel? I don’t know because I don’t watch, but reflecting on the blog reactions it must be all Blogo all the time on the TV. Now let’s get them worked up about the war ciminals. Blogo is interesting but I don’t think he ordered the torture and killing (and genital torture of children). Who is working triage in the news rooms these days?
Enjoy.
TenguPhule
I know an angry mob of out of work or underpayed union workers trumps a Republican’s choice of breathing.
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
In all seriousness, Catsy has boiled WHY P Park’s "questions" are not only not "helpful", but has illuminated the reasons why they need to be rejected on their face. Money quote:
"It’s just a FUD tactic—raising fear, uncertainty and doubt rather than asking a question in search of an answer."
Bingo. We have a Winner, see comment #339.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I didn’t overlook it. I overrode it. I am asserting that there can’t be much about his past that isn’t known, and if you think there is, then spell it out. Otherwise you are just doing armpit farts.
The guy was part of one of the most documented stories in modern American history. What do we not know about it?
If there is to be an "investigation," who is going to pay for it, and ….. why? What would motivate anyone to dig further into that dreary story?
If you are so interested in it, why don’t you devote the next 2-4 years of your life "investigating" and let us know what you found out? Take your time. We’ll miss you, but not much.
TenguPhule
Penis envy.
Why else are they such big pricks?
tomjones
@Paragon park: It is unpatriotic to ask stupid questions. For example, it would be the height of unpatriotism to ask:
@Mnemosyne: Excellent point, Mnemosyne. I tried to get at this earlier when I referred to Ayers as a "reformed" terrorist, but PP just glossed right over it.
Didn’t we decide a long time ago that we as a society believed that people should have a shot at redemption? And, in fact, isn’t that one of the most beloved of American tropes?
TenguPhule
This only applies to Republicans.
SATSQ.
Randall
No one should associate with anti-abortion activists but it is somewhat acceptable for nutters, goopers and dittoheads so you shouldn’t feel too bad
libarbarian
@Moar
I’m not on anyone’s team, Moar.
Thats why I’m so damn popular :).
TZ,
I was speaking to Zuzu. Not you.
ZUZU,
You aren’t Zuzu the blogger are you? The one who used to blog a bit at feministe?
Paragon park
Wow. This place is getting every bit as loony as No quarter or Talkleft or even the wingnut blogs.
It’s sad to see that people can no longer rationally and intelligently discuss anything that challenges their prejudices. the utter vapidity and supreme arrogance of the arguments he is breathtaking. the sad thing is I do believe most of you actually think that because you declare something unimportant the rest of the world must either follow your lerad or be stupid (or attempting to manipulate those that are).
When we have people with such narrow-minded, intolerant, belligerent and authoritarian attitides dominating discussions of politics across the spectrum, it’s hard to have much optimism about the future.
I can only console myself with the hope that the 0.001 of people who frequent political blogs are unrepresentative of the %99.999 who don’t.
Catsy
Translation: Goodbye, cruel world!
Appropriate Response: Door, ass, etc.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
Nope.
libarbarian
Xenos,
Look, I think we all know that the level of evidence against Ayers surpasses the level of evidence that people on this forum, including myself, have needed to condemn a whole lot of other fucking people.
But NOW it’s suddenly not enough to pass judgment…… Now we have people, who have themselves condemned people with less evidence, that are demanding the kind of proof that could only be gotten with a trip to the scene of the crime in the fucking TARDIS!
Worst of all, the people doing this either lie or really don’t see the contrast.
Is it possible he is innocent? Of course. Would believing this require a leap of faith in the face of much evidence to the contrary? Hell yes!
Are people like Zuzu applying a standard of evidence MUCH higher than they would apply to a Klansmen, or Militia-member, or other rightwinger in the exact same circumstance? No fucking doubt.
libarbarian
Zuzu,
Thats too bad. It would have been more fun if you were, because Zuzu the blogger is ridiculous.
And, ok, maybe you aren’t too stupid to live. Still, I find it hard to believe that you actually think Ayers is innocent.
I wouldn’t lock him up on the evidence I have, but I think its more than enough to call him out as a piece of shit and spit on him if he passed me on the sidewalk.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
"People like Zuzu" have actually asked you to please provide proof of your claim that a single individual attempted a specific criminal act or acts.
The fact that you see that as an impossible-to-meet standard says a lot about your claim…and the fact that you feel the need to repeatedly insult others for asking says a lot about you.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
Well, I find it too bad you aren’t a piebald pony because you would at least be entertaining.
I don’t care what you think about Bill Ayers. Your need to misrepresent what other people may or may not think about him – as you have just done again – makes your comments worthless, in my opinion.
Just Some Fuckhead
I say we pick new teams and start over in a new thread.
TenguPhule
Don’t worry, you’re not.
TR
Don’t flatter yourself. You haven’t challenged anything.
Name the specific questions that have your panties in a bunch, or fuck off.
Randall
You have to exaggerate to make a point when you are an authoritarian
shithead.
t jasper parnell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
No, I say no. We must answer the question of if Obama’s gay relationship with Ayers, who wrote Obama’s mother’s dissertation and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is all there is to the story. Is not ZuZu, a likely name, not really Jane Hamsher and thus responsible for Kos’ smear about phosphorus shells while simultaneously being Cindy Sheehan? Pike’s Peak wants to know, these questions must be answered. Indeed. Plus aren’t all the 60s radicals, who sought to end the War, nor really responsible for its continuation because their strategy is identical, in every way, with the Underpants Gnomes? Of course they were. As some dangerous professor or another puts it
libarbarian
Now you are just lying about what you said and asked for.
This conversation is over.
Zuzu's Petals
@Randall:
Well, I sure don’t think Demi is that. But I do think there’s some exaggeratin’ goin’ on.
libarbarian
The term is co-conspirator. Look it up genius
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
You seem to forget it’s all right there in writing.
Just Some Fuckhead
@t jasper parnell: We got eight years to figure out all that shit, T Jasper.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
I thought you said this "conversation" is over.
Very well. I know what a co-conspirator is, though you haven’t even offered proof of that.
In addition, "conspiring" for someone else to perform an act is not the same as "trying" to do it oneself. Which was, after all, your claim.
libarbarian
Yes it is.
libarbarian
A co-conspirator in a plot to kill is "trying" to kill people by all legal and practical definitions of the word.
libarbarian
As for it being over….We’ll you got under my skin. It happens.
Now, its over. Believe what u want about me and Ayers, and I will return the favor.
Randall
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Demi, I thought I was talking about libarbarian.
Zuzu's Petals
@libarbarian:
"Yes it is" over, yet here you are typing away. (Edit: I guess "getting under your skin" prompts an allergic reaction of pompous twit-itude.)
And here we are back at your circular "I believe" based on a "common sense conclusion" based on … your belief.
As I said, if you were a piebald pony you would at least be entertaining.
t jasper parnell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
16 years, you mean. You see, it is clear that the Blago kerfluffle is really just a cover so that Michelle can be appointed Sen from Ill so that after Obama’s 8 yr reign of terror, aka competent centerism, Ms. Obama, with her doe eyes and whatnot, and 8yrs in the Senate and 8 yrs in the Whitehouse, which is equal to thousand yrs of relevant experience, will hypnotize the American people and the reign of competent centrism will continue unabated. Curse the foul fiends.
Zuzu's Petals
@Randall:
Well, the comment you quoted was in response to Demi. But as to the other … carry on.
demimondian
@Zuzu’s Petals: We seem to have a bit of he said/she said/they said going on here.
The text you pointed me to is not the text I remember — but I read a lot of stuff in the time, and I could be confused. I remember a substantial book, not a short squib, but, as I said, I could be wrong. As to your "exaggeration" claim…well, children live in the world where they grow up. I’m not exaggerating; I was there. [shrug]
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
P Park – there’s nothing "narrow-minded, intolerant, belligerent or authoritarian" about calling "Bullshit" when someone comes over and plays "Concern-troll" in an attempt to advance speculative irrelevancies as though they had some tangible import to our future. At best, it’s a nettlesome distraction…which is not that big a deal…until it’s carried out ad nauseum with the accompanying insistence that there is some real point behind it, other than a lame attempt at undercutting the integrity of our incoming President. Nothing is accomplished by your continued pursuit of an answer or answers more suitable to your particular preference. You seem to want to find some chink in Obama’s integrity where no one outside of Wingnuttia reasonably considers there to be one. Do you really think that Barack Obama had some sort of tight or intense or significant contact or communication with Ayres? Why? It has been pointed out time and time again in this thread that sitting on the same board or shaking hands with a person at a political fund-raiser carries no significance in and of itself. When there is no heat, smoke, incendiary device, or even a human presence in an empty room it is delusional and ultimately foolishly fruitless to run around and warn people that the room could possibly be engulfed in flames at any moment, yet that appears to be what you want us to turn our attention to. When we tell you that after brief consideration we do not wish to lend credence to your warnings you show us a lot of puffed-up indignation and then repeat the same vague speculative inquiries you started off with. In a court of law an opposing attorney would just stand up and say, "Asked and Answered, your Honor" and the judge would tell you, "that’s enough of that, counselor, let’s move this thing along, shall we?" And you would have to come of with something new or sit down.
Well, this ain’t a court of law, you probably aren’t an attorney, and I ain’t a judge, but why don’t you come up with something new, or sit the f*ck down, sir?
But thanks for playing, "Balloon Juice". Although you did not win, we have some excellent complimentary consolation prizes waiting for you just outside the door. Please go and collect them. Don’t delay, or someone else might take them.
demimondian
@Randall: Feh. I’ve got a thick skin — calling me an authoritarian thug is nothing worse than my kids call me every day.
Come to think of it, they’re probably right. So carry on.
Mnemosyne
I’m not sure that anyone here considers Ayers to be morally "innocent," either. In the most optimistic light, he’s guilty of being ridiculously naive in his faux-revolutionary fantasies if he thought the violence he began would never escalate to dangerous levels. But that’s still not the same as cutting your ex-wife’s throat while your children are sleeping upstairs.
Zuzu's Petals
@demimondian:
I don’t have any doubt that some jerk somewhere said or wrote something along those lines. There was plenty of ugliness to go around.
I know too, because I was a young adult who was "there" when a lot of that stuff was going on.
My point was that it just doesn’t seem helpful to extrapolate things like that into connections that may or may not exist.
tomjones
@Catsy: Your post was full of so much win it makes my heart swell. =)
Genine
@Catsy:
Excellent post, Catsy. Those are my feelings about it, you just said it better.
TheHatOnMyCat
I have no idea what this means, but, okay.
Also, the record will show that I am not the target of any investigation.
So, back off.
TheHatOnMyCat
I know. But then, what else are you gonna have optimism about?
The distant past, maybe. You know, it was just nicer then.
Don’t you think?
Xenos
Maybe we are. I don’t think so, though. There are two levels to the "palling around with terrorists" meme that ought to be attacked. the first, the "palling around", speaks to the nature of the association. This has already been dealt with adequately elsewhere.
The second is the terrorist label for Ayers. OK, I grant he probably was a terrorist. Still, there is room for doubt, doubt as to whether he was in any way involved in the Greenwich Village bombing, and so on. He can’t be tied to the scene of the crime, he can’t be tied to securing the explosives, deciding to bomb the USO, deciding to use the nails. This fuzziness has given Ayers the wiggle room to regain a measure of respectability. It also explains why Obama, who usually demonstrates excellent judgment, could think that even a mere interaction with Ayers would not be toxic to his career.
So I am not arguing in order to poke culture war vets like Libarbarian in the eye. Maybe there is some evidence, some testimony somewhere that clearly shows Ayers to be guilty of what everybody seems to be so sure he did. I just have not seen it, and get outraged responses when I try to figure out how we really know how guilty Ayers really is.
bago
This Paragon Park character rolled you all to over 350 posts. Well played.
Conservatively Liberal
Catsy won, shut the thread down.
What a tag team goatfucking marathon! In one corner we have Atanaratatatat, the fast running goat fucker, and Parasol Pantsload, who is new to the goat pen but is eager to prove worthy of working alongside Atanaratatat.
In the other corner is everyone else except the few like Catsy, the lucky(?) spectators at this goatfucking extravaganza.
Ouch. Not a good day for the home team. Better luck next time I guess. GoatBoy is going to be pissed that he missed out on this feast.
Paragon park
I didn’t roll anyone. I simply stated the fact that Obama has never disclosed exactly what he knew about Ayers at the time he met and began working with him and opined it is certainly legitmate to ask him about that.
All the subsequent posts were volunteered by people who evidently believe shouting down with obscenities and inanities constiture persuasive rhetoric.
I’m still not sure why this issue strokes such a raw nerve. Is the position here that any suggestion Obama is not perfect cannot be tolerated? Is he perceived as so weak that the type of questions that would be asked of any other official holding any other office must be suppressed when directed toward him? Or, are we attempting to commence a new era in which politicians are accorded special status and those who seek answers will be subdued by belligerent mobs of worshippers?
These angry, thoughtless posts denouncing anyone who dares stray from the group orthodoxy would seem to be more appropriate for Germany in the early 30s than 21st Century America. When a simple statement that a person should explain something exposes such visceral hatred and intolerance we have a problem.
Conservatively Liberal
No way you goatfucker, you’re not adding me to your party. No sale and good bye.
Comrade Stuck
@Paragon park:
Just shut the fuck up already robot troll.
Catsy
@Paragon park: I thought you already wrote your GBCW post? Then again, I guess it wouldn’t be a true GBCW if you didn’t continue to stick around and whine about how oppressed you are.
A number of people, myself included, have taken a time out from our fun to give real, substantive answers to you, which is a hell of a lot more than your FUD what-ifs deserved. I haven’t seen you engage meaningfully any of the points we’ve raised, instead preferring to whine obstreperously about what Nazis we are for calling bullshit on you, which suggests that engaging with you seriously is a waste of time that would be better spent sitting on the toilet and reading a good book.
Do you really think you’re the Moses of Ayersgate, come down from Drudge’s mountain to bestow upon us heretofore unknown knowledge? I’ve got news for you: you haven’t said anything new or interesting about Ayers. Your blather will not lead anyone to the Promised Land, and the burning bush you thought you saw was just Ann Coulter’s dose of the clap. Far from bearing stone tablets with wise words, most of us just think you’re stoned, and I for one wish you’d hook me up. It must be good shit.
Enough. The party’s over, and nobody here is buying what you’re selling. Please go swallow barbed wire, pull it out through your ass, and floss yourself.
Finis.