Why do you hate Sarah Palin?

[Netzach]

Should'a run Romney, I think.

I think the hardcore evangelicals wouldn't have let an LDS guy in. It's kind of a shame, I think he'd be polling better now.

 

[Netzach]

CAMERON: OK. So, at the risk of annoying you, when you are asked, what do you read? Which papers and magazines? You didn't answer it.
Or, you said, I have all kinds of resources.
PALIN: Right, right, right.
CAMERON: Well, what do you read?
PALIN: I read the same things that other people across the country read, including the "New York Times" and the "Wall Street Journal" and the "Economist" and some of these publications that we've recently even been interviewed through up there in Alaska.
Because, of everything that we're doing with oil and gas, a lot of the investment publications especially are interviewing us, asking us how are being so successful up there in contributing to our nation's step towards energy independence.
CAMERON: Sure.
PALIN: So, my response to her. I guess it was kind of filtered.
But, I was sort of taken aback, like, the suggestion was, you're way up there in a far away place in Alaska. You know, that there are publications in the rest of the world that are read by many. And I was taken aback by that because I don't know, the suggestion that this was a little bit of perhaps we're not in tune with the rest of the world.

Yes, they think I'm a hick, how dare they!

If the honorable Governor of Alaska stopped acting like one for a minute and a half I'm sure people would change their mind.

Irony: unlike a lot of fellow objectors, I think she can. I think she golly darn CAN any ol'minute she chooses there yeseiree, ol'man McCain would get red in the face but sometimes a girl's just gotta get tough.

Please, Palin. I know you're not like this in alaskan internal debates. It can't be.

Ventura swept MN as a "maverick" (look it up McCain) because he had the breezy populist appeal, but rather than pitting rural MN against everyone else he pitted "those of you with a shred of common sense" versus everyone else. Without trash talking, but with sounding like a rational human with a plan. And honesty that not everyone will get everything they want, but overall, here's what can be done that would actually work. The social wedge issues were summarily dismissed as relevant, the economy was run in a centrist fashion. Some social spending was cut, but not to the bone, not trashed as "loser nonsense."

I honestly see it as less disastrous in hindsight the longer I chew on it. Hey, the bridges stayed up, and that was as close to Libertarian as I wanna get.

I voted for him. What was I gonna vote, Humphrey?

 

[JMohegan]

McCain and Obama deserve the same condemnation for running negative personal attack ads against one another.

No they don't.

Ads that are distorting or misleading about their opponent's record and positions? Unfortunately, yes, on both sides. (Personally I have the strong suspicion that McCain's distortions have been more frequent and more exaggerated. But that's hard to prove, so for the sake of argument I'll grant you parity here. Though surely you would agree that McCain's claim that Obama voted to teach explicit sex ed to Kindergartners was a low point, from a sleaze perspective.)

Obama "doesn't understand." McCain is "out of touch". Parity again.


However, can you point to any Obama ads that have been as personally insulting and derisive as the series McCain ran this summer? Paris Hilton, et al?

Can you point to a time when Obama, or anyone on his team, has accused McCain of being unpatriotic, if not downright treasonous? "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country. This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." That was Palin, lying and attempting character assassination of Obama, yesterday. Source.

Unless and until you can point to something equally outrageous, I call bullshit on the idea that McCain and Obama deserve the "same condemnation" here.

 

[SweetErika]

No they don't.

Ads that are distorting or misleading about their opponent's record and positions? Unfortunately, yes, on both sides. (Personally I have the strong suspicion that McCain's distortions have been more frequent and more exaggerated. But that's hard to prove, so for the sake of argument I'll grant you parity here. Though surely you would agree that McCain's claim that Obama voted to teach explicit sex ed to Kindergartners was a low point, from a sleaze perspective.)

Obama "doesn't understand." McCain is "out of touch". Parity again.


However, can you point to any Obama ads that have been as personally insulting and derisive as the series McCain ran this summer? Paris Hilton, et al?

Can you point to a time when Obama, or anyone on his team, has accused McCain of being unpatriotic, if not downright treasonous? "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country. This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." That was Palin, lying and attempting character assassination of Obama, yesterday. Source.

Unless and until you can point to something equally outrageous, I call bullshit on the idea that McCain and Obama deserve the "same condemnation" here.

You made this point way better than I could have, JM.

I also don't think anyone's required to give every side with every opinion. I feel it's perfectly reasonable for someone to make a point or give a view without mentioning different sides/views, no matter what side that person may be on.

For me, it becomes problematic when a person fails to take a hard look at different views and look at their own beliefs critically.

I usually do seek out other views, information and assess my beliefs with a critical eye, so I really don't feel the need to state things a certain way to appease certain people. That is, I feel secure that I'm doing the right thing the vast majority of the time, and that knowledge is enough for me.

All I can say, RJ, is after thoroughly considering your thoughts, I can imagine how frustrating it'd be to believe people need to state their views in a certain format, and perhaps it'd be best for you to ignore the posts of those of us who don't live up to your standards.

Good luck to you, regardless of how you choose to deal with it.

 

[RJMasters]

Unless and until you can point to something equally outrageous, I call bullshit on the idea that McCain and Obama deserve the "same condemnation" here.

Well your welcome to your opinion on that JM, I'm comfortable with mine.

As for the Ad regarding Sex education to K-12.

I don't know how much you have accualy read and thought through what is contained in that peice of legislation. If you stopped at the media level where McCain tried to smear Obama by saying he wants to teach sex education to kindergarteners, then you obviously haven't looked deeper to the underlying issues that clearly come into play when it comes to parent empowerment verses the liberal forced ideology over what children are being taught at school.

When you cut away all the fat, here are the things which I see as being true.

The piece was suppose to be about protecting children from sexual predators according to Bill Burton and company, yet there is really nothing that specifies anywhere in it that this is part of ciriculum. What is specified is that the sex education will include teaching about the avoidance of unwanted pregnacy, transmission of STDs and HIV.

Beyound this, the legislation was later amended because so many parents were outraged, and this was added.

"If a school offers a class or course in sex education in grades K through 5, the course material shall be age and developmentally appropriate and medically accurate.”

This amendment did not pacify angry parents however, because it doesn't answer the question of who gets to decide what is "age and developmentally appropriate".

Does Obama want sex education taught to children as young as 5 years old? The answer is yes, he wants age and developmentally appropriate sex education taught to them. That doesn't make him a pervert, it makes him some guy who would give the power to allow others to determine what that is.

Perhaps as a clue to what some would consider age appropriate content for 5 years would be:

Daddy’s Roommate (Alyson Wonderland): Michael …Reading level: Ages 4-8; Paperback: 32 pages; Publisher: Alyson Books (July 1, 1994) …. Ovearall, I think Daddy’s Roommate has a wonderful family friendly …

What same sex partners do at home and how they want to raise and teach their kids is their business. But when the School Library Journal writes this kind of review:

PreSchool-Grade 2-- A first title in a new line of books for children with homosexual parents , told in a straightforward manner. A young boy describes his father's relationship with his roommate, Frank (they "live together, work together, eat together, sleep together . . ."), and his own relationship with these men--shopping, gardening, and enjoying the zoo, beach, movies, etc. He believes that "being gay is just one more kind of love. And love is the best kind of happiness." The tone throughout the book is positive, and the boy has healthy, affectionate bonds with the adults in his life. There is no mention of bitterness or possible criticism from others. The message, that alternative lifestyles are as nurturing as mainstream ones, is intentionally obvious. Bright, framed watercolors in an almost comic-book style portray the relationships with a light touch. This is a book to consider for purchase because of the treatment of the subject rather than for the quality of writing or art. It will be useful for children in similar situations or for helping those from heterosexual families understand differences. A similar picture book, Leslie Newman's Heather Has Two Mommies (In Other Words, 1989) presents a lesbian family. --Heide Piehler, Shorewood Public Library, WI

As a parent I have every right to question why Obama supports giving others the power to decide what is age appropraite material when it comes to sexual education.


The fact is, hundreds of thousands of parents are pulling their kids out of public school, because men like Obama and Mr. Ayres want to push or empower radical organizations to have access and influence to these kids young minds. Our kids. My kids.


----------------------------

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them....

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto....

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement....

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin....

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Source - By all means read it there is more that I left out.

----------------------------

So is Obama some kind of pervert for wanting to teach young kids about sex? No, he's much worse. He's the guy who works the system to empower those who want to do that.

So when Obama starts talking about how he is for education, what he's really talking about is how he wants to continue his ideology and methods that he employed as the CAC Chairman. It doesn't matter that there is a 44% dropout rate, he would much rather put the money to good use on teaching radical liberal agendas through organizations.

And yeah you could put this as one of those things that's on this God's green earth makes me angry.

 

[intothewoods]

On the sex education amendment, RJ, your argument makes a few leaps. Curriculum is always set by the school district, principals and primarily, the teachers. Others are always "empowered" to make these choices. If a teacher decided to use books which depict a gay couple, that choice would be reviewed by the principal and the teachers, the way it works in every other subject.

As to the Bill Ayers point, your source is Newsbusters.org. I looked at their about page and found this:

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

The facts in that piece don't mesh with what I've read in other articles about Obama and Ayers. And these pieces weren't flattering to Obama. It's true that Obama and Ayers served on the same board. Ayers is a college professor, and is heavily involved in education reform in Chicago. But I don't think the organization was the brainchild of Ayers, and there's no evidence that Obama and Ayers worked closely together. It's true that Obama made no efforts to distance himself from Ayers, but Ayers was a prominent person in the education reform movement in Chicago. And Ayers has stated that he regrets his actions, but in connection with a book released in 2001 (either in the book or a statement made at that time) he said that he did not regret placing the bombs, and wished he'd done more. Of course, the bombs the group placed were aimed to damage buildings, not injure people. Obama had no further contact with Ayers once he was elected to the senate.

 

[WriterDom]

Of course, the bombs the group placed were aimed to damage buildings, not injure people. .

What the FUCK?

 

[JMohegan]

When you cut away all the fat, here are the things which I see as being true.

The piece was suppose to be about protecting children from sexual predators according to Bill Burton and company, yet there is really nothing that specifies anywhere in it that this is part of ciriculum.

SB99: "Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment."

Beyond this, the legislation was later amended because so many parents were outraged, and this was added.

"If a school offers a class or course in sex education in grades K through 5, the course material shall be age and developmentally appropriate and medically accurate.”

This amendment did not pacify angry parents however, because it doesn't answer the question of who gets to decide what is "age and developmentally appropriate".

Does Obama want sex education taught to children as young as 5 years old? The answer is yes, he wants age and developmentally appropriate sex education taught to them. That doesn't make him a pervert, it makes him some guy who would give the power to allow others to determine what that is.

SB 99: "However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV AIDS or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."




Source for the above excerpts from the bill: Factcheck.org

About Factcheck.org -

"We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation."

 

[JMohegan]

Source - By all means read it there is more that I left out.

When you link to a credible source, I'll read it.

Since you want to talk about Ayers, why don't we discuss this? Yes, I know it's the NYT - and in general I'm sure you'd say it's far from unbiased. But that specific article is the one currently embraced & cited by Palin et al, so presumably you'll make an exception.

 

[RJMasters]

When you link to a credible source, I'll read it.

Since you want to talk about Ayers, why don't we discuss this? Yes, I know it's the NYT - and in general I'm sure you'd say it's far from unbiased. But that specific article is the one currently embraced & cited by Palin et al, so presumably you'll make an exception.

Your unbelievable JM. I love how you just sweep aside any facts. What I find funny is that the peice I quoted was not written at that site. The peice that I quoted actually came from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html - The wall street journal.

I am sure you will dismiss just as easily since it doesn't fit your view regardless whether its factual or not. In fact I am sure you will dismiss any source that I use because they don't just give your canadate a pass, like most of the sources you use.

You expect me to just accept everything you say and give any credibility to those sources you point out as being the truth and the only truth in regards to your canadate? Is that how this works?

Your response to my very well developed and stated position is fucking appauling. I won't continue any political diaolog with you at all, because you lost all credibility with me what so ever that you are really interested in listening to anything I might have to say. As I said before this, there is simply nothing to be gained by talking about any of this. You just going to vote for who your going to vote for regardless of the facts.

Bye, enjoy talking with only those who agree and share your point of view across the board.

 

[RJMasters]

On the sex education amendment, RJ, your argument makes a few leaps. Curriculum is always set by the school district, principals and primarily, the teachers. Others are always "empowered" to make these choices. If a teacher decided to use books which depict a gay couple, that choice would be reviewed by the principal and the teachers, the way it works in every other subject.

As to the Bill Ayers point, your source is Newsbusters.org. I looked at their about page and found this:

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

The facts in that piece don't mesh with what I've read in other articles about Obama and Ayers. And these pieces weren't flattering to Obama. It's true that Obama and Ayers served on the same board. Ayers is a college professor, and is heavily involved in education reform in Chicago. But I don't think the organization was the brainchild of Ayers, and there's no evidence that Obama and Ayers worked closely together. It's true that Obama made no efforts to distance himself from Ayers, but Ayers was a prominent person in the education reform movement in Chicago. And Ayers has stated that he regrets his actions, but in connection with a book released in 2001 (either in the book or a statement made at that time) he said that he did not regret placing the bombs, and wished he'd done more. Of course, the bombs the group placed were aimed to damage buildings, not injure people. Obama had no further contact with Ayers once he was elected to the senate.

Why don't you try reading the article again and this time don't skim over the part where in order for the schools to get the money being offered, they were forced to be partnered with organizations of the CAC choosing. The money was used as leverage over the schools who badly needed the money.

As for the bombs only meant to blow up property, An undercover FBI agent who infaltrated the Weather underground is on record stating that Ayers taught him how to build bombs and he was assigned to set off a bomb by Ayers. When the agent objected saying that there was a resturant right next door and the chances are good that many innocent people would die or be injured, Ayers responded to him saying that there are always sacrifices that must be made in war.

So much for your theory that it was only meant to damage property eh?

 

[intothewoods]

What the FUCK?

Oh great, why don't we argue the Vietnam war now. I didn't blow up any buildings, nor did any members of my family, nor do I think it's right. However, I believe our extended involvement in the Vietnam war was wrong. I believe that lives were wasted. And I agree with civil disobedience. In my family, that meant non-violent protests. But I understand how a person could be so disgusted by war that he decides to, say, blow up a mail room where draft notices are sent from. I don't think that person is the moral equivalent of someone who blows up a bus with kids on it. That's my opinion.

Why don't you try reading the article again and this time don't skim over the part where in order for the schools to get the money being offered, they were forced to be partnered with organizations of the CAC choosing. The money was used as leverage over the schools who badly needed the money.

For someone who takes issue with the vitriol that politics inspires, you aren't all that polite.

What does "partnering" mean in this context? And what organizations? Even if you are vehemently against the presentation of gay parents as normal, which I am not, you must admit a book which talks about gay parents is not teaching kindergarteners to use condoms. And in looking at the bill itself, I don't see where homosexuality is even referenced. I see HIV prevention, how to say no to unwanted sexual advances/activity, pitfalls of teen pregnancy, and others.

As for the bombs only meant to blow up property, An undercover FBI agent who infaltrated the Weather underground is on record stating that Ayers taught him how to build bombs and he was assigned to set off a bomb by Ayers. When the agent objected saying that there was a resturant right next door and the chances are good that many innocent people would die or be injured, Ayers responded to him saying that there are always sacrifices that must be made in war.

So much for your theory that it was only meant to damage property eh?

I simply don't think the record is entirely clear on what Ayers actually intended at that time. An FBI agent said one thing. He has written and said other things. Other witnesses have said something entirely different. I'm not saying I agree with the guy. But the facts are not settled. And more importantly, Obama's contact with Ayers was minimal, and not unlike any other prominent Chicago politican involved with education at the time. It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Obama hangs out with terrorists, as if he's grabbing beers with Osama bin Laden.

 

[SierraMoon]

it seems "filter" is going to be Palin's new excuse term. She used it at the end of the debate, she used it the next morning here (when talking about her interview with Couric) and she's using it in multiple places since then.

So it seems to me that the media "filtering" her answers is what is making them seem so stupid.

 

[JMohegan]

Your unbelievable JM. I love how you just sweep aside any facts. What I find funny is that the peice I quoted was not written at that site. The peice that I quoted actually came from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html - The wall street journal.

That's an Opinion piece, RJ. Not a news story. Do you understand the difference?

The opinion piece to which you linked was written by Stanley Kurtz, self-described right-wing culture warrior.

I am sure you will dismiss just as easily since it doesn't fit your view regardless whether its factual or not. In fact I am sure you will dismiss any source that I use because they don't just give your canadate a pass, like most of the sources you use.

I have no evidence that the Opinion piece to which you linked is factual. In fact, aside from a lot of generalized hyperventilating about "radical" agendas urging students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence," I see no substance to that piece at all.

You expect me to just accept everything you say and give any credibility to those sources you point out as being the truth and the only truth in regards to your canadate? Is that how this works?

No, that's not how it works. I encourage you to check out the sources, investigate the authors, uncover any bias and bring it to light.

I'm not linking to Daily Kos or Huffington Post. I'm going out of my way to cite a non-partisan source (Factcheck.org), as well as a source that McCain/Palin cites, which I consider to be cite-worthy too (the NYT article on Ayers).

The dearth of information sources that are universally acknowledged to be credible is a HUGE problem in this country. There's so much spin and distortion that it's really fucking difficult to figure out what's going on, and almost impossible to have a productive discussion on the relative merits of somebody's record when we can't even agree on what happened and when.

 

[WriterDom]

Oh great, why don't we argue the Vietnam war now. I didn't blow up any buildings, nor did any members of my family, nor do I think it's right. However, I believe our extended involvement in the Vietnam war was wrong. I believe that lives were wasted. And I agree with civil disobedience. In my family, that meant non-violent protests. But I understand how a person could be so disgusted by war that he decides to, say, blow up a mail room where draft notices are sent from. I don't think that person is the moral equivalent of someone who blows up a bus with kids on it. That's my opinion.



For someone who takes issue with the vitriol that politics inspires, you aren't all that polite.

What does "partnering" mean in this context? And what organizations? Even if you are vehemently against the presentation of gay parents as normal, which I am not, you must admit a book which talks about gay parents is not teaching kindergarteners to use condoms. And in looking at the bill itself, I don't see where homosexuality is even referenced. I see HIV prevention, how to say no to unwanted sexual advances/activity, pitfalls of teen pregnancy, and others.



I simply don't think the record is entirely clear on what Ayers actually intended at that time. An FBI agent said one thing. He has written and said other things. Other witnesses have said something entirely different. I'm not saying I agree with the guy. But the facts are not settled. And more importantly, Obama's contact with Ayers was minimal, and not unlike any other prominent Chicago politican involved with education at the time. It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Obama hangs out with terrorists, as if he's grabbing beers with Osama bin Laden.

Sitting in Ayers' living room was minimal? We don't know the whole story because Obama was never vetted. His cronies have gone to great lengths to bury all the evidence. I do expect an October surprise.

 

[intothewoods]

Sitting in Ayers' living room was minimal? We don't know the whole story because Obama was never vetted. His cronies have gone to great lengths to bury all the evidence. I do expect an October surprise.

Yes, it was minimal, and yes, we do know the whole story.

From the NY Times article:

It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.

“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, “Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”

“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”

 

[JMohegan]

I simply don't think the record is entirely clear on what Ayers actually intended at that time. An FBI agent said one thing. He has written and said other things. Other witnesses have said something entirely different. I'm not saying I agree with the guy. But the facts are not settled. And more importantly, Obama's contact with Ayers was minimal, and not unlike any other prominent Chicago politican involved with education at the time. It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Obama hangs out with terrorists, as if he's grabbing beers with Osama bin Laden.

According to the NYT article -

"Most of the bombs the Weathermen were blamed for had been placed to do only property damage, a fact Mr. Ayers emphasizes in his memoir. But a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco attributed to the group killed one police officer and severely hurt another. An accidental 1970 explosion in a Greenwich Village town house basement killed three radicals; survivors later said they had been making nail bombs to detonate at a military dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And in 1981, in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y., that involved Weather Underground members including Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed.

In his memoir, Mr. Ayers was evasive as to which bombings he had a hand in, writing that “some details cannot be told.” By the time of the Brinks robbery, he and Ms. Dohrn had emerged from underground to raise their two children, then Chesa Boudin, whose parents were imprisoned for their role in the heist."



However, the key point here is the one you make in your last two sentences. The association between Ayers, the Univ. of Illinois professor, and Obama, the adult, was far from cozy. And Obama was a kid living in Hawaii when Ayers was engaging in these "detestable acts" (to quote a phrase from Obama himself).

 

[midwestyankee]

Sitting in Ayers' living room was minimal? We don't know the whole story because Obama was never vetted. His cronies have gone to great lengths to bury all the evidence. I do expect an October surprise.

Obama was vetted by nearly 37 million Americans, slightly more than half of whom voted for him during the primary election cycle. That's over 18 million Americans who came to the conclusion that Obama would make a good President. In case you've forgotten, we are a representative democracy and the people have spoken and are continuing to speak.

And really, to say that Obama was not vetted (as in investigated to within a pussy hair of his life by poltical pros) is ludicrous. You can't possibly state with a straight face that the Clintons didn't dig up every tiny dust bunny in Obama's closet. They left nothing behind. The Clintons take no prisoners and Obama beat them, in part, because there's nothing out there that they could stick to him that would persuade reasonable Americans to refuse to vote for him.

 

[naxalite0906]

I dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but I found it funny...

http://xmissy.nl/mediaplayer/?itemid=20129

The film itself is ok for work, thesite may not be...

 

[JMohegan]

Sitting in Ayers' living room was minimal? We don't know the whole story because Obama was never vetted. His cronies have gone to great lengths to bury all the evidence. I do expect an October surprise.

From my perspective, Obama did a good job defending himself re Ayers in this interview with O'Reilly.

What type of evidence are you expecting? Put differently - what is it that you suspect Obama did, or tried to do? Is this a gotcha type thing, or are you genuinely concerned that Obama supports, or has supported, violent resistance within the United States?

 

[Netzach]

Oh great, why don't we argue the Vietnam war now. I didn't blow up any buildings, nor did any members of my family, nor do I think it's right. However, I believe our extended involvement in the Vietnam war was wrong. I believe that lives were wasted. And I agree with civil disobedience. In my family, that meant non-violent protests. But I understand how a person could be so disgusted by war that he decides to, say, blow up a mail room where draft notices are sent from. I don't think that person is the moral equivalent of someone who blows up a bus with kids on it. That's my opinion.



For someone who takes issue with the vitriol that politics inspires, you aren't all that polite.

What does "partnering" mean in this context? And what organizations? Even if you are vehemently against the presentation of gay parents as normal, which I am not, you must admit a book which talks about gay parents is not teaching kindergarteners to use condoms. And in looking at the bill itself, I don't see where homosexuality is even referenced. I see HIV prevention, how to say no to unwanted sexual advances/activity, pitfalls of teen pregnancy, and others.



I simply don't think the record is entirely clear on what Ayers actually intended at that time. An FBI agent said one thing. He has written and said other things. Other witnesses have said something entirely different. I'm not saying I agree with the guy. But the facts are not settled. And more importantly, Obama's contact with Ayers was minimal, and not unlike any other prominent Chicago politican involved with education at the time. It's disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Obama hangs out with terrorists, as if he's grabbing beers with Osama bin Laden.

Jesus Christ. If being forced to be in a school where my kindergartener is taught that they'll meet other people who have two same-gender parents and might see that they go to the circus together means you feel you need to drop out of the mainstream, drop the fuck out.

I'm offended that my son might see people without earlocks. Girls with naked arms.

The mainstream is secular and superficial. If you can't handle that, there's a religious school, there's your house. As a religious minority I've been told for decades that the right of free exercise means I have a right to go build my own school if this isn't working for me.

Talk about "special rights."

Yes, it is completely appropriate for 5-6'ers to learn about other cultures and people different from them.

I went to private school. We got the penis-vagina talk in Kindergarten and had our class bunnies mated in front of our eyes. (an impressive visual to this day)

Being godless baby killing heathens in the city we didn't have local cows to watch.

I had sex ed in HS, and I had my first sexual interactions at 18. I was typical in my peer group.

Information doesn't lead to the breakdown of society. If that doesn't work for you, go raise funds with your church and make a school and have a nice day.

Simple acommodations are right. When I did afterschool daycare there were some JW's and I would often go next door and color with them while Bobby had his birthday cupcake and no one had any huge issues.

If it starts to become a huge issue, public school may not be the right choice.

 

[JMohegan]

Jesus Christ. If being forced to be in a school where my kindergartener is taught that they'll meet other people who have two same-gender parents and might see that they go to the circus together means you feel you need to drop out of the mainstream, drop the fuck out.

For the record and just to avoid any confusion here, the book to which RJ objects in post 530, Daddy's Roommate, has nothing to do with Obama's sex ed bill and nothing to do with Bill Ayers.

As far as I can tell, RJ threw in that Amazon summary of the book to give an example of the type of thing that he, personally, would object to in public school curricula.

That book is also the one mentioned in this excerpt from an NYT article on Palin.


The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

 

[Netzach]

For the record and just to avoid any confusion here, the book to which RJ objects in post 530, Daddy's Roommate, has nothing to do with Obama's sex ed bill and nothing to do with Bill Ayers.

As far as I can tell, RJ threw in that Amazon summary of the book to give an example of the type of thing that he, personally, would object to in public school curricula.

That book is also the one mentioned in this excerpt from an NYT article on Palin.


The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

This has always been the MO of the anti Daddy's Roomate brigades. None of them have read it. Or Heather.

They're pretty much as simple as "here's a person who does these mundane things I do and these are her parents."

Considering that the majority of people who do not support gay marriage DO support civil contracts between partners AND gay adoption - MOST PEOPLE on both sides of the aisle/issue - IE. the mainstream and majority - it would seem like a useful tool to explain some of the people that one's child is liable to run into in the kind of world most people want to live in.

These books have been the scapegoat of the anti sex-ed forces for almost 20 years now.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't dislike the woman for being pretty or confidant. I do think she's an embarrassment. Can you imagine Condoleeza Rice spending the debate doing to "gosh golly gee" *winky winky giggle* thing every time she opened her mouth?

A friend of mine just called and pointed me to this transcript of a chat with conservative columnist Kathleen Parker. When I read it, I thought of you right away!



Boston: As a professional woman, didn't Palin's behavior at the debate disturb you? It's one thing to be that relaxed (contrived or not) at rallies, but can't we agree that debates are a serious professional setting? I wouldn't wink in a boardroom.

Kathleen Parker: The winking was beyond annoying. I haven't talked to any women who weren't deeply offended by her flirting for votes. But she was clearly told to do it. Her coaches said, go for it, honey. Flyover America will love it. We'll see if they were right.

No, it was girly, silly, unserious and obnoxious. One of the great lessons of The Bible, with which surely Gov. Palin is familiar, is that there is a time and place for all things. For serious people, winking gotchas during a vice presidential debate is absurd and insulting.

 

[KinkyBoyUK]

i wonder if palin became vp, how would she deal with northern ireland politicians, colonel gaddafi, nelson mandela, or any other world politicians with terrorist pasts/links?