are you aware that natural seepage puts more oil in the sea than oil spills? That there is actually an environmental group pushing drilling to reduce natural seepage by relieving subterranean pressure? That oil in the water has been written about in Santa Barbara harbor since the earliest European explorers landed their first SUVs there in the 1500s and the natives used it to waterproof their canoes? That Cuba is selling its offshore drilling rights to China so that Florida underwater oil will be drilled whether WE get the benefits or not.
Why is it racist when some whites won't vote for Obama because he is black but not racist when Obama polls 95% among blacks?
I personally do not believe that intelligence or even knowledge should be tested for voters but I do question the suitability of anyone who watches Jerry Springer or listens to Howard Stern. :P
Kuul, I recognize you are too young to remember but the south was uniformly Democrat until the early sixties (centuries ago when only dinosaus plus Kukla and I roamed the earth). The racists, Klanners, white supremacists and pro slavery govts in the south were overwhelmingly Democrat and the south as a voting block was solidly Democrat. It took "betrayal" by LBJ, a southern congressman most of his career, to turn that around. And in the fifties the Democrat block in the congress from the south was blocking effective civil rights legislation and it took a lifelong law and order Republican in Earl Warren, the chief justice of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench and push through Brown vs Board of Education and use it to actually change the laws of the country from the bench, clearly unconstitutional but the only way it was going to get done. That by the way was the beginning of the whole "activist" Warren Court which leads us to today when conservatives do not want activist, but strict constructionist judges and liberal want legislation from the bench. Warren was the source of the famous Miranda rights we hear cited on every cop show and even the case that was the basis for Roe v. Wade.
That whole change of the south and the Warren court specifically is an incredibly interesting topic.
After reading the story in the SF Gate, I am no longer quite so sure that I say this is an innocent and right event. First, the argument used by the school administrator to make the case that this is living history and part of teaching civil rights, is fine on the surface but in light of the battle going for prop 8 in the city/state right now is not clearly an innocent statement. I am bothered that a child was wearing a "No on Prop 8" button. I am bothered that the story clearly says the teacher emphasized the word "wed" to make a political statement. Bothered to the point of thinking this was wrong? Not sure but as usual, the details muddy the waters. On the face of it, parents are OK, then I am OK. But I am not sure that it is all quite so straight forward. As usual.
can it be? Sure. There are many practical, as opposed to literary advantages. There is nothing more efficient than a monarchy or dictatorship. All of the jokes about a committee are based in truth. But what is th cost of this efficiency? The government is only as good as the one person is wise or their instincts are good or they are open enough to include the opinions of others in their decision making. Hereditary or military selection of heirs is rather hit or miss. So "good" is a rather nebulous issue here. Like any form of government it has its pluses and minuses.
Why should school resources be used to take kids to a marriage? Any marriage? Even the marriage of their teacher? And has the school system ever organized, in the respect that a field trip is "school system organizing" a field trip to a heterosexual marriage? Or was this trip planned specifically and exclusively BECAUSE this was a same sex marriage? I don't know this buit was the marriage during normal school hours? While the teacher would normally be teaching? Couldnt parents take their kids if the kids wanted to go? Why was the school involved? If so, isn't it possible that using the school system to organize this trip is what you say you are against? The government getting involved where it shouldn't, just as religion shouldn't? Is polygamy next to be accepted as a nontraditional family unit? arranged marriages? Like it or not, Religion, schools, government, families and morality all overlap.
What might make same sex marriage "wrong" differs for different opponents. Religiously the bible says it is an abomination. Socially, it furthers the destruction of a core of our nation's stability, the family which has been torn asunder by a constant onslaught since the forties. Scientifically it is an unnatural act as sex, coupling and family are about procreation and the survival of the species. So there are many arguments that can be made as to why it is wrong but it is up to each of us to decide if any of them hold water or are just sophistry or just interesting theories or arguments. Then, if we do come to the conclusion that it is "wrong", we still have the legal issue of whether it is wrong in a legal or constitutional sense, or a moral but not legal sense or just in an "icky" sense. And lastly, the decision as to whether those who do this "wrong" act are evil or criminals or just like drinkers. We agree that drinking too much is bad but we don't arrest anyone just for that. Way too complicated to just ask, is it good or bad, right or wrong, and leave it at that. It is also simplistic to assume that acts by a significant number of others has no effect on us. That was once believed about smoking and drunk driving. If we should not interfere with one man's pleasure if it doesn't hurt someone else, Why is it OK to say that how much Warren Buffett or Bill Gates makes is too much and he should have his income capped or pay more because of it? It doesn't hurt you for him to have 40B dollars, does it? and if so is it any different than how same sex marriage might hurt you?
I never demand anyone submit to the overpowering weight of my intellectual prowess :P
I offer my opinions and my reasons for them, evidence supporting my opinions and then let the crayons fly where they may.
and if that doesn't work, I throw a hissy fit!
second shot at answering this. Last night i wrote my reply but posting it was interrupted by system maintenance on the site so I lost all that work.
First, no exceptions for me. Terrorism is morally inexcusable. You excuse the 60s radicals, HGray excuses Palestinian suicide bombers. Reverend Wright says the 9/11 attacks were America's fault. If you use violence and target civilian populations there is no excuse, again and as always in my opinion. I won't pay attention to your sign so you bomb the Pentagon and Capital? Sorry, not in my book.
My box of crayons has 128 colors and a sharpener in the back. Whether I pull out the burnt sienna or the brick red, they are morally equivalent. They target civilian populations for murder for political gain.
I am sorry but as you know I immerse myself in the campaigns, probably beyond what is sane or healthy. I see what I term mischaracterizations on both sides. These are shading or coloring the truth. I find the term "palling around with" to be this type of thing. I would not say palling around with. I would say knowingly overlooking the unsuitability of this partner for blatant career advancement goals.
In my box of crayons, her shading of the message is HUGELY less offensive than Obama calling Ayers merely "a guy in the neighborhood" or the clear distraction of saying Ayers formed the Weathermen when Obama was eight. I do not see how you can criticize "palling around" without also criticizing "guy in the neighborhood".
Those are the kinds of things that don't bother me. I understand that campaigns will "straddle the line" when selling and packaging their candidates. I will admit to you that i listen to very little coming out of the McCain camp. He has been around, has a track record and I know who he is. I do not need to hear him. I do not need to relive the Keating mess that I lived through and know the result of. When I discount all the campaign rhetoric, I am left with tons to base my decision on. Not so with Obama. Obama's record appalls me. Radical Michelle Green at Columbia. Handpicked by radical client ACORN as a lawyer. Handpicked by radical terrorist Ayers as an organizer. Racist church for 20 years. So, I need to listen to a lot of Obama to feel comfy with him. And what do I hear when I listen to him? I hear him telling lefty liberals in SF that middle America is bitter, clinging to guns and religion, but then in middle America speaking to the very people he called bitter, he says he understands them and wants to help them. Now to me that is a despicable lie. He said he would meet McCain "anywhere, any time" when McCain called for town hall meetings, but after his staff got hold of him, he went back on his word again. But the single most undeniable lie told in this whole campaign is Obama signing and giving his word to use public campaign financing. He flat out broke his word, once again, to advance his career. Is the deed horrendous? No, he raised more cash and was entitled to use that advantage, but then don't make a promise you have no intention to keep.
None of that even gets to the fact I believe he has a radical agenda, admits he will raise less money and spend more, is a clear socialist and is going to literally shake this nation to its foundations, the very things that have made us America for the last 232 years. I have kept this to the arena you brought up. lies and trustworthiness. I think Palin's phrase is silly. I think Obama's are lies. He has intentionally mischaracterized his relationships with bad people. He has minimized the trend of associating with bad people when it can advance his career. If you think mere "palling around" rises to that level, I am afraid I will have to ask you for my lemon yellow crayon back.
I hate to argue against myself but it was a Republican proposal which Clinton and Rubin agreed with, so really bipartisan. I blame Clinton for a lot, starting with 9/11 but I think he did the right thing in that case. Glass Steagall needed to be reformed. It was horrribly dated. And a few of the issues in that Gramm bill opened the Pandora's box slightly but I still say that the main problem was caused by the mandate by Congressional Democrats to make sub prime loans and then the mandate to Fannie and Freddie to buy up those sub prime loans. So it was too much BAD, but well meaning regulation that caused our problems, not too little regulation. What gave you the idea I would agree with you just because you say so? Congressional interference causes much more trouble than it clears up. Even well intentioned regulation is often knee jerk, rushed through and mainly to show they did something, even if it doesn't fix anything. Less regulation is always preferable but that doesn't mean NO regulation. We cannot trust business or labor unfettered and government should try to keep an equilibrium between the two while each of them will naturally try to get things swinging too far to their side of the scales. That is why the economy will always be up and down. It is fluid and cannot stay good always.
Figures from 2005 show that US CEOs are better paid than European counterparts but not by as much as you seem to think. US CEO to factory worker pay is 39 to 1, in England it is 32 to 1, in Italy 26 to 1, Germany 20 to 1 and on down the line.
I do not disagree that the disparity of wealth is huge in America but I would argue that the disparity in standard of living might not be. The lower income groups in America live much better than lower income groups in Europe. They walk into any emergency room and get care which they do not pay for. Social services provide a safety net above the level of Europe. It is common in Europe for multiple generations to live in one home with less than one bed, never mind a bedroom for each person.
The free market is no panacea, it is merely the best answer we have. So called "intelligent" and compassionate government intervention caused this crisis IMO. Barney Frank, Chuck Shumer, Chris Dodd through their respective committees, the Congressional Black Caucus all conspired to increase home ownership for less and less financially well off families. Sounds like a good idea, right? Who could complain about expanding home ownership? I used to build low income housing in inner cities myself so obviously it is something I believe in. But they mandated, meaning forced legally the lenders to make sub prime loans . . . which we now call BAD loans. So government intervention is a two edged sword. There is no doubt that in the early days of the 20th century, government intervention was needed. They put in child labor laws and minimum wage laws and a 5 day work week. All were needed because of abuse by an unfettered industrialist class. So I would propose that government intervention can be good but also can be bad. Too often they have unforeseen consequences. And in those cases, instead of fixing it and admitting they goofed, they get all defensive like in 2005 when Bush and the Republicans tried to regulate (yes, they tried to ADD regulations) to curb Fannie and Freddie to avoid exactly the mess we are in now. Obama tries to take credit for trying to stop the crisis because he supposedly made a phone call to the Treasury secretary. Compare that to the Republicans under Chris Shay who actually held hearings. And what happened at those hearings? You can find video of the Democrats saying Fannie and Freddie were fine, No problems, they were doing what they were supposed to do and how indignant they were that the hearings were even held. Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie and the foundations they sprouted were all pumping money into democratic campaign coffers and funneling money to Acorn who then pumped some of THAT money into Democratic campaign coffers. The hero of those Democrats was Franklin Raines who took HUGE amounts as CEO of Fannie Mae and was fired or cooking the books to boost his pay. And all of that was the result of bad regulation. It is all very similar to how Dems complain about lobbyists on the Republican side. There is nobody wearing white hats in any of this.
I never said ethanol had anything to do with the credit crunch crisis. I said that it artificially raised food costs. What makes the current times so hard for middle and low class is that inflation of basic necessities is out of hand. Energy for cars and heating oils and food are out of sight. That is what I was saying about the ethanol contribution to how hard he times are for so many. We use tons of corn for a trickle of fuel. Corn prices rise and that affects meat prices because corn is a major part of feed for animals. Corn prices go up because the government subsidies keep the price artificially high, so farmers plant corn instead of wheat . . . so bread prices rise. Did you know that there is a shortage of agave in Mexico because they are plowing it under to plant corn, all because of the US government subsidies on ethanol . . . so when you see tequila prices going up, blame the government ethanol program. That is an example of where the free market would have been fine if the govt hadn't mixed in. Regulation is necessary but it always carries with it the bogeyman of unintended consequences. And no matter how many times you say it, the current crisis is NOT the fault of too little regulation, it is the result of too much BAD regulation.
How can taxing American companies NOT make European companies more efficient by comparison? That is just silly on the face of it. They do not become more efficient in an absolute sense of increased productivity but in comparison to their American or Japanese competition who pays more taxes they are clearly more efficient.
OK, now you made me ashamed of myself . . . well almost. No apology needed from you. You were much more respectful than i was. and certainly more mature. It was late, I am already peeved from having to deal with disingenuous challengers playing debate games instead of serious disagreement. You ran head first into my being tired and angry. I stand by what I said and apologize for how i said it. You owe me no apology for your posts, I owe you one. I don't think you attacked me and even if you did, I am a big boy and if i am willing to go on the attack myself, I better be willing to take attacks. The only thing I won't take is what I call intellectual dishonesty, someone who is playing games to win debate points instead of backing up their own opinion and I feel like i run into way too much of that here.
breaks? No breaks lol That is what he gets for associating with a crotchety old fart like me that uses bad words when blogging past his bedtime. Frankly I did not catch the fact that he was missing the issue of eight years old. I wasn't calling you an eight year old Kuul. I was mostly riffing off of the silly Obama dodge about his being eight when Ayers bombed the Pentagon.
As for Ayers not being a terrorist? How is he different from the 9/11 crew? They both bombed the pentagon, one with a homemade explosive and one with a jetliner. Do you realize that Ayers personally set off bombs? That he formed the Weathermen and planned their bombing of government buildings? Are you aware that they funded these efforts by traditional robberies which left dead bodies in their wake including three police officers? Are you aware that these robbery/murders took place into the eighties? How is Bill Ayers any different than Osama bin Laden? Id Obama was working with bin Laden, would you similarly just white wash it and overlook it? Please explain the difference to me. If there is ANY difference, I don't know of Osama actually setting off bombs of his own against the US. Please explain why you think Ayers is any less of a terrorist? He planned and/or executed bombings of the Pentagon, Capital, police stations and committed robbery and murder to fund the execution of these plans. Off the mark? I hardly think so. I am appalled that you and other Obama supporters feel the way you do about this issue.
Physician heal thyself. Do not whine to me about the bias of the media when you display YOUR bias over and over. First, you name only conservative media sources which are no more or less biased than liberal trash like the NYtimes and CNN. There is no unbiased mainstream media . . . on either side. But you have no place to piss and moan about it. You are just as biased. Your posts reek of your bias. Just look below. Terrorism is OK for the poor but self defense is not OK for the rich? What kind of horse shit is this? Morality is morality and there is nothing holy about being poor terrorists. I don't need to justify Israel. There is nothing to justify. They found a Land occupied by insects. Humans don't use terrorism. Terrorists give up any rights that humans possess. Even if Thomas Jefferson's words are accepted and we are all created equally, our actions can forgo that state of affairs. Israel has done nothing but defend itself and the insects attacking it have given up any rights we grant to human beings by their conduct. Society has rules. As society exists, Israel is a state and that is it. Terrorism is outside of society's norms and thus those who commit it are not party to the rights which society grants its members. There was no Palestinian "state" until the British formed Trans Jordan. So the British created the state and then gave part of it to the Zionists as Israel. The Israelites were occupying that part of the region 3500 years ago. Now you can accept or reject any of those circumstances as legitimizing the nation of Israel, but the fact is that it exists and is accepted by our society. Any of them are plausible but none of them are necessary. As for your rejecting ANY media source because they are biased? Pot, meet kettle.
I know you hate to let facts get in your way and trip you up but the deregulation bill everyone is blaming is Gramm's bill which CLINTON voted into law, not Bush. The current problems were caused directly by Democrats BLOCKING regulation. You have it all wrong . . . as usual. Darn those pesky facts for getting in the way again!
And where did you make up this silly idea that Europeans companies are more efficient? We make them more efficient by taxing our companies. Look at the productivity numbers. Our workers are more productive than ever. But the COMPANY cannot be as effective because of artificial burdens imposed by taxation. The last time this happened Reagan corrected the unfair advantage that foreign companies had and it resulted in a decade of growth that ended with the 2000 tech bubble busting.
This whole idea that our economic planning has failed is a joke. The economy will go up and down no matter what system is in effect. It is just the nature of things. The systemic problems with our economy are not trickle down related. They are caused by politics interfering. If it wasn't for congressional muddling, the falling oil prices would already be solving the economic jitters. If it wasn't for congressional interference with energy policy, we wouldn't be driving up food prices with a silly plan for ethanol. If food and energy costs were back to normal, inflation would not be crushing the middle and lower classes. So our probs are not economic theory but, as usual, regulatory interference. Congress crushes us no matter what system is in place economically.
lies, damn lies and statistics. The article presented the statistics it was based on. The issue is what you accept and what you don't accept. Your opinion is not based on statistics. Statistics do no prove what level of income is ludicrous or if ANY level is ludicrous. That is your opinion and you can't "prove" it one way or the other. Fair is not something that can be proven by statistics. Our difference in opinions have nothing to do with statistics. I am against redistribution of wealth. You are for it. No stats will prove one right or the other wrong. Besides, if you cared about the argument instead of your silly games, you would not be distorting my words and going for cheap debate points instead of arguing what you believe. I do not have to listen your imperious demands and commands. I give the reasons for my opinion. You want statistics? I don't care. You do not get to dictate rules to me. Unlike you, I am not trying to win a game. I am here to discuss what I believe. You don't believe or agree? Who cares? My responsibility is to state my opinion and give the reasons I hold those opinion. I answer the questions of those who truly question me or who want to know more. I do not have to entertain self impressed smarmy pissants who merely want to antagonize and play little games.
Ayers selected Obama to be chairman of an organization funding up to 150 million dollars. Ayers hosted the kick off of Obama's first political campaign. You want proof look it up. It is all over the place. This time try looking with your eyes open. I am not so smart. I just do my homework before I say something. I don't ask questions I don't know the answer to.
Ayers admitted he was guilty and has never apologized despite your lies that he has. Instead he said that he is only sorry he didn't do more. The difference between Ayers condemning terrorism and my doing so is that I never did it myself. And when will people stop using Wikipedia as a source? You criticize You tube which is not a source merely a vehicle for videos which may or may not be accurate vs spoofs and then cite Wikipedia which is created by anonymous posters with no credibility or authority.
You say he isn't a terrorist because of HIS definition of terrorism? Stop saying these idiotic things. There are dozens of technical definitions of terrorism, especially in international law but they all entail using violence to instill fear or intimidation. That is EXACTLY what Ayers, his wife, the organization they founded and their compatriots did. I am not interested in the sophistry of excusing a terrorist from terrorism because his actions don't fit HIS definition of terrorism. He is not sorry he bombed the Pentagon. He said so. That is unrepentant. He does not repent his actions.
And now I see we have another asshole who is going to edit my words and try to force me to defend the skewed statement he comes up with. Read it again and come back when you are willing to discuss what I actually said and not the edited words you twist my statement into. I am done. I won't deal with your games any further. This sick game you all seem to insist on playing has just gotten too old. It is almost midnight and I try to come back here to answer and just find another fool who cant deal with what I actually say but has to twist it until he can actually respond to it. Deal with the context of the whole statement or just spare me your childish games. Why have the last three people to challenge me all used this same tactic? You cant just take half of a statement and pretend I never said the rest?! Try to back me into a corner where I have to defend something I never said! I am done. Your arguments are juvenile and you just wont deal with what I actually say but try to twist my words. No more for me. The Youtube video is actual footage but you are too stupid to realize that. It is not a spoof. It is accurate footage of the actual hearing. So who cares what site is the vehicle for the streaming video? And not once have I cited ANYTHING from the McCain campaign you asshole. You just lie and twist and edit. Trustworthy source? I have caught you lying, playing games with my words. I dont claim to be anything but accurate. Trust me or don't. But when I give an opinion it is clear and separate from statements of fact and I dont pay games like using Ayers own definition of terorism as proof he isnt a terrorist!!! You come with the most ridiculous stuff yet. Ayers isnt a terrorist because he says so?? Just go away. I can't waste time on the likes of you.
wwhat a load of lies. What Obama is responsible for is his bad jusgement. For repeatedly overlooking the illegal and immoral nature of the people he uses to advance his career. Ayers IS a terrorist, has not apologized or repented, has recently said he wishes he had done more. He formed an organization that killed plice oficers with bombings and just because he didn't set off THOSE bombs doesnt mean he is not responsible. Your argument would mean that Osama is not guilty either because his hands were not on the stick of the jets that flew into the twin towers. He is just as guilty for masterminding the attacks. Same with Ayers. At the time he met Obama, he was still an unrepentant terrorist. And his efforts are not towards educating the youth. As he and his organizations say, the goal is to politicize and radicalize the youth. That is not educating. That is the same as the Moslem Madras which purport to educate but instead indoctrinate hatred and recruit suicide bombers. This is Ayers view on teaching in his own words:
"In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I’m a radical, Leftist, small ’c’ communist,"
How was this put into practice? This is how:
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).
Of course we all know how ACORN used the money . . . buying legislators, hiring professional identity thieves to run fraudulent voter registration campaigns across the country.
And it is not just Ayers. This is how Obama thinks. At COlumbia he was part of the circle surrounding Maxine Greene who teaches the same freedome of teachers to radicalize our children:
Thus Maxine Greene urged teachers not to mince words with children about the evils of the existing social order. They should portray "homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder's choice." In other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.
All music to Bill Ayers's ears. The ex-Weatherman glimpsed a new radical vocation. He dreamed of bringing the revolution from the streets to the schools. And that's exactly what he has managed to do.
Ayers uses textbooks produced by himself and Greene which show how to politicize the teaching of math and science. As in the quote from Ayers:
"Science pedagogy framed around social justice concerns can become a medium to transform individuals, schools, communities, the environment, and science itself, in ways that promote equity and social justice. Creating a science education that is transformative implies not only how science is a political activity but also the ways in which students might see and use science and science education in ways transformative of the institutional and interpersonal power structures that play a role in their lives."
Educator? please. He is still an active force working to destroy the United States, only now in a less violent method. The minutes of the CAC show that Obama and Ayers funnelled tens of millions to education with no measurable improvement in the schools or the students learning. If the University of CHicago wasnt keeping these minutes from all but selected reporters we would know even more. They both worjk for the same causes and funneled money to each other's pet projects repeatedly. Read the Kurtz series to read more.
CAC’s story is a classic of the genre. Ayers and Obama guided CAC money to community organizers, like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the Developing Communities Project (Part of the Gamaliel Foundation network), groups self-consciously working in the radical tradition of Saul Alinsky. Walter Annenberg’s personal politics don’t change that one iota. They have done the same when NOT working together, still feeding the same beast.
I am tired of people like you assuming that because you are stupid, I must be too. McCain has voted for and against a lot of bills in his career. Idiots liek you use his vote against the Bush tax cuts to say he must be agaionst them. But if you had as much brains as mouth, you would dig a little deeper and realize that his vote against the cuts was his protest against the lack of spending cuts/controls. But see, that takes original thought, It takes thinking for yourself and not regurgitating party line or campaign swill. I have no diea why McCain voted against that particular bill but I am willing to believe with no further proof than a 29 year career and record that he was not voting "against stopping domestic terrorists" as you characterize his vote.
As for what Obama says AFTER he used Ayers to build his career, I dont believe a damned thing Obam says. He has told too many lies to believe anything coming out of his mouth. Just wait til the election is over adn we get a look at all the contribution data he ius hiding from us now. It will be just liek Clinton. AFTER he wins he will apologize for all the illegal contributions he took and pay tyhem back. BUt he used them to get elected and only "found" them after it was too late.
Evidence of little green men living in Teaneck NJ could be found on the net. The issue is one of how intellectually we choose from among the flotsam and jetsam found there. Doing a search on three different search engines using the keywords "Ayers apology" comes up with no evidence that Ayers has ever apologized for his actions in the 60s and the 70s. So I guess now YOU have been caught in a lie just like Mr. Obama.
I believe you will find that she was in public service as an elected official prior to her term as governor. But I agree with your last point. If he wins, there is a 100% chance Obama will serve time . . . I mean serve as president (wink) but if McCain wins, there is a significantly smaller chance that Palin will serve as president. But when you put it the way you just did, Palin will be the perfect president after 4 years of Obama. She already has experience running a state with no infrastructure, energy that doesn't go anywhere and no population left. I think you are on to something!!
Unless you are eight years old that was the stupidest thing I have read on here. The bombing took place when Obama was 8. The relationship came later when he was an adult. The whole eight year old comment is typical Obama attempt to misdirect the issue. Ayers is a terrorist, not a child molester.
I take it back. My eight year old niece understood so even if you ARE eight, it was still the stupidest thing I have read on here
