CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Barack Obama has experience in dealing with national issues. As a senator every decision he makes affects the nation as a whole. Sarah Palin on the other hand has only had to deal with issues that were significant on a state and local level during her time as governor and mayor.
In addition, Obama represented Chicago during his time as a state legislator in the district that included parts of Chicago. This is a significantly larger population the either Wasilla Alaska, or possibly the whole state of Alaska.
Actually he doesn't he has or knows little about dealing with national issues and this is a misunderstanding on your part "as a senator every decision he makes affects the nation as a whole" since you don't seem to know politics at all what a senator votes on has no implication on the nation as a whole usually votes are made to resolve specific issues. And just because barrack Hussein obama was a state legislator it has no implication on experience as opposed to that of a governor.
It's obvious that Senator Obama is the one with more experience here. You simply have to look at the arena that the two politicians have been involved in. Obama has been a powerful player in the nations most competitive arena, while Palin has only needed to consider the Alaskan political arena, which is most certainly not as experience-inducing as congress.
Alaska is actually very involved in american politics Obama is young and inexperienced he even proves this currently by doing a horrid job at being president trying to make america socialistic
Senator Obama has a lifetime of commitment to helping people, even before any political aspirations.
Excerpts from Wikipedia:
"Obama moved to Chicago, where he was hired as director of Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization... During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from one to thirteen and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute."
"Obama directed Illinois' Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and seven hundred volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be."
And then there are his academic qualifications:
"Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors. Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago."
"Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004."
And there are other reasons he's got more experience, but I'll leave it to you to read his biography.
Senator Obama has a lifetime of commitment in helping people to vote early and often, as evidenced by his participation in Project Vote Smart and his association with ACORN. I wonder how many of those 150,000 to 400,000 unregistered African-American voters were duplicates? Bet it wasn't anything like the guy on the front page of the NY Post who was registered by ACORN 72 times though. Now that's experience you can hang your hat on.
I think you don't understand the difference between voter registration and actually voting.
Acorn has to submit all registration forms that are filled out no matter how fake the name is. It's the law. What they do is tag those they think are fake.
These are just registration forms though. In order to vote you have to have a valid photo ID. I highly doubt that the person who registered 72 times will have 72 valid ID's. Other people also registered as Mickey Mouse. Do you think that someone is going to have a photo ID that says Mickey Mouse?
None of these fake registrations have any effect on voting, and in fact measures to purge databases because of these fake names actually end up disenfranchising more voters then they stop voter fraud.
So Fairfax, next time you decide to give an opinion, make sure you know what the fuck your talking about, you'd hate to come off looking like an idiot.
I see, ACORN was just minding it's own business, being a good, law-abiding agency and following the law here. Hmmm. Your assertion that 'none of these fake registrations have any effect on voting' is a pretty dubious claim at best. Yeah, I get the difference between voter registration and voting by the way, but thanks for the clarification. BTW, do you know how easy it is to get a fake id (computer + Photoshop + scanner). Are you implying that no matter how aggressively ACORN campaigns to register the same people multiple times, that the 'system' will magically catch all of these errors that are being forced into it? Do you really believe that all of the thousands upon thousands of fake voter registrations by ACORN will have none, zip, zilch, ZERO effect on voting?!?!? The fact is that it is unethical at best and illegal at worst for thugs of ACORN to be signing up the same people multiple times (and bribing them with dollars and cigarettes in many cases).
Actually what I'm saying is most of these fraudulent voter registration forms will not affect voting. In order to register and vote you need more than just an ID. I challenge you to find any cases where people voted more than once The issue is being so over hyped and exaggerated. If there is any affect then it will be extremely small, to the point where it is insignificant. Meanwhile Republicans are trying to stop same day voting and registration, and attempting to disenfranchise thousands of other new voters because their mailing address does not exactly match their drivers license. This would have a profoundly more significant affect on the election then millions of fake voter registration cards.
Also, in case you weren't aware, fake ID's are expensive, and if ACORN is having to bribe people with money and cigarettes, do you think these people will go through the trouble of procuring multiple photo IDs and then traveling to numerous polling stations on election day (to avoid suspicion). I think not.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.
"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."
While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.
NO ID TO VOTE!
Please tell me again that these fake registrations will absolutely no effect upon voting whatsoever! Who knows how large the impact could be in these key states.
Oh, and the FBI just raided ACORN headquarters in Nevada as a result of an investigation that revealed thousands of bogus registrations. But I suppose this is all just a big right-wing conspiracy...
-ACORN tags the registration cards they think are fake
-The process for purging fake, or expired or fake registered voters is so in depth that it actually gets some legitimate voters by mistake, because of simple errors, like an recent address change or a middle initial is missing
-In case you didn't read the article, let me filll you in on something: Bush has politicized the Justice Department. Federal prosocuters were actually fired for not finding any cases of voter fraud even though they conducted sweeping and in depth investigations
-Finally, I would like to say that although I have great respect for the FBI and it's possible that the order came from higher up, accusations are not the same as convictions. When evidence shows in the court of law that ACORN has acted illegally and that they're actions had an effect on the election then I might take your points seriously
Ah, so close, you had a valid point and everything. Then at the end you ruined it with your low class language. I would rather be wrong than low class.
If I was running this site, your account would be suspended.
Well, first it sounds like your new to the internet. Secondly, no it's not illegal to curse in public, just on T.V. or radio. So in the interest of celebrating free speech let me say: Goddamn, Jesus Fucking Christ, Shit Cuntbiscut. Any cops? No! Because we have the 1st ammendment!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Why does it matter how old I am? Clearly I understand the constitution better than you if you think that it is illegal to say certain words in public. When was the last time you heard a headline "Man arrested for saying fuck you in public"? Never!
Go back and read the 1st ammendment to see if there's a clause that says "freedom of speech unless people think it's offensive."
Obama has more experience. He has proven his every point during the campaign and all the past issues that surrounds him; reason why he's been elected as the new head of state. Palin is more experienced in dealing with how she can spend thousand of dollars on her expensive clothes and jewelries and finding ways to separate her daughter from her husband Levi Johnson.
Some are identical and some are not. I don't know if mine is the debate you're referring to but mine is not a "which president is better" debate. The Pyg took exception to the after all the rhetoric and debates are concluded...which of the candidates do you TRUST. Since most people here, like pyggy, think everyone is full of donkey dung during a campaign or this particular campaign, and this being such a close race, which candidate does your gut or heart tell you to trust is not a bad debate...but I'm biased, lol...it's my debate. The Pyg made the complaint debate right after mine!
Ahhhhh....gotcha but this is even more ridiculous than most. It pits the Presidential candidate's experience against a V.P.'s. I find it strange. What's the point? That if it were shown Palin actually had more experience than Barack Obama that she should be running for president? Heaven help us!
Because everyone wants the free books and is making debates left and right to gain points towards that goal. Why are you asking silly questions? Perhaps for the same reason? ;)
What free books? O.o There are free books?? O_O What are they?
And I haven't asked any silly questions so far; I first make sure it's a topic others will be interested in, and then check for any debates similar to it. Even my McCain vs. Obama ones are unique; few other of the presidential candidate debates addressed specific issues like economic policy, tax plans, or foreign policy. And I didn't find anything about offshore drilling in California...
I would definitely say Obama. Technically Palin does, but she has been in Alaskan politics, which are a little more docile than most of the other states so really Obama has more experience as far as problems.
Mccain has many years of experience he's been arizonas senitor for a very long time why'll obama his barley came to office out of no were do we really won't a preson that has no experience in the white house i dont really wont a other how you say cliton in the presidents seat again
Barack Obama definetly has more experiens. Palin is also well experienced but i don't like the way she thinks. Just like proving Obama wrong and encouruging women for abortion
I was trying to give them a false sense of security so they wouldn't go out and vote! You ruined everything!
Just kidding ;)
I'm just trying to remember the last time we had more than 8 years of any one party. I think it was in the 80's. The Republicans were in office for 12 years under Reagan and Bush senior. Ah, the good old days. Then the Democrats under Clinton for 8 years. Then the Republicans under Bush Junior for 8 years.
But the Republican party under the Reagan presidency had a higher approval rating than under the Bush Junior's presidency. That's why they got voted in for a 3rd term under the Bush senior presidency.
Today the Republican party doesn't fare so well because people feel that McCain means more of Bush Junior's doctrine (which they apparently hate).
There are 3 issues that can sway the vote one way or another.
1. Terrorism. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since after 9/11 so people don't seem to care much about this any more.
2. Health Care. Whether McCain's plan and Obama's plan are similar or not doesn't matter. The economy is going to restrict what they can do.
3. The Economy. This one is the big one. Politicians take advice from the experts and then make a decision. The experts don't seem to agree on how to fix the problem and so the politicians will try to take a middle of the road approach. Who ever makes it to the white house will have to take an extremely tough test and there's no one they can cheat off of.
Here's an Obama quote I partially agree with:
Whoever is elected, Obama said: "The president's going to be tested. And the question is, will the next president meet that test by moving America in a new direction, by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer about bluster and unilateralism and ideology, but we're about creating partnerships around the world to solve practical problems."
The reason I say partially is because if the freaking U.N. had the cajones to force Saddam into letting the inspectors in, we wouldn't have had this WMD crap. If the world does not want American unilateralism then it better take partnering with us a little more serious. If the world wants to play nice with us then Obama is our president. If not, then chose McCain.
HA! listen to me trying to be serious! Who am I kidding.
Vote for whoever is more photogenic. Whoever looks cool standing next to other leaders.
I would have loved seeing Sarah standing next to a Saudi prince and having the female population in his country go, "WTF? Off with this burka crap!" But then I saw a picture of Obama jumping off an exploding helicopter on a skate board and every hair on his head was perfectly in place. now that's cool! ;)
obama has never lead anything and has never published any of his political and he was a professor before being senator so there isnt much leadership there in my opinion
palin has much more experience because she has had several different jobs where she is the leader such as mayor and govenor. so what if it was for a small town and small state. palin is a representative for the true americans.
unfortunately it doesnt matter because as joe cavalry said , this election is pretty much wrapped up
Who has more experience, or who thinks they have more experience? Because when it comes to who thinks they have more experience, Sarah Palin takes the cake! I don't even think I need to put up a long debate saying how you can tell by the way she talks that she thinks everything she is saying is super sophisticated and correct even though it makes no sense at all. So before I stay up all night bagging on Palin, I'm just going to leave it at that and you can pretty much infer the rest if you watch any of her debate arguments or speeches in general.
First of all, Obama doesn't have this election yet. Polls don't mean anything. And Palin has more experience than Obama. She makes day to day decisions as a governor while little ol' Obama voted present on most bills.
Actually he was a state senator and now is a U.S. senator. This means he makes national decisions. In case you weren't aware, Alaska is a very small state so any decisions Palin made affected a very small amount of people (less than one million). As a senator Obama's decisions affected the entire nation.
Also, what do you have against community organizers? Martin Luther King Junior was a community organizer and he did some pretty good things (to put it lightly).
I would say that Obama has more experience. Yes, Gov. Palin does have more executive experience but she is in only in her first term of Governor. She has been governor for two years, and was put under invegsation when and it was found that she did abuse her power and broke a state ethics law. =/
Also, it does matter because if something happens to Sen. McCain can you imagine Palin being President? I've looked where she stands on some issues and I agree with her on some but, could you trust her with Foreign Policy? All she has done is met with world leaders.
Obama has foreign policy, yes not as much as Sen. McCain but more than Palin. Obama is a member of the Senate Forgein Relations Committee, which his running mate Sen. Biden is the chairmen. Obama is also the Charimarin of the Sub-Committee of European Affairs.
Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004. Member of the Senate maybe is not running a state like Sarah Palin has but, a Senator is someone voting on bills and on the Military acts. They get more tuned in with the issues. While Gov. Palin is running her state.
Sarah Palin has 16 years of political experience and has reformed government and taken on political corruption.
Obama has only 11 years of political experience and has developed connections with people like Rev. Wright, Pfleger, and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama is simply another Illinois democrat and we DON'T need anymore of those.
Take a look at the below video to see what he did to help his district in the state senate---he did nothing.
We find McCain's accusation that Obama "lied" to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.
Other claims are seriously misleading. The education project described in the Web ad, far from being "radical," had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. The project is described by Education Week as reflecting "mainstream thinking" about school reform.
Despite the newly released records, there's still no evidence of a deep or strong "friendship" with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and '70s Obama has called "detestable" and "despicable."
Even the description of Ayers as a "terrorist" is a matter of interpretation. Setting off bombs can fairly be described as terrorism even when they are intended to cause only property damage, which is what Ayers has admitted doing in his youth. But for nearly three decades since, Ayers has lived the relatively quiet life of an educator. It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist," and an "unapologetic" one at that. But if McCain means the word "terrorist" to invoke images of 9/11, he's being misleading; Ayers is no Osama bin Laden now, and never was.
The first to begin using the new line of attack against Obama was McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, after a lengthy article appeared Oct. 3 in the New York Times about Obama and Ayers:
Palin, Oct. 5: Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.
She's repeated the charge again and again at different campaign stops since then, citing the Times. What the Times article actually says, however, is this: "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers." The Times says its review of documents and interviews with key players "suggest" that Obama "has played down his contacts with Ayers," but describes their paths as having crossed "sporadically" since their first meeting in 1995.
And far from palling around with Ayers, the two haven't spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Obama came to the Senate in January 2005, according to an Obama spokesman. He said the two last saw each other more than a year ago, when they accidentally met on the street in their Hyde Park neighborhood.
Obama addressed Palin's claim on Oct. 8, when questioned by ABC News' Charlie Gibson:
Obama, Oct. 8: This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. ... And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that ... I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.
16 years??? I think you'd better check that since she's only in her first term as Governor of a state that has a very small population, virtually no infrastructure plus oil and gas which doesn't realy flow anywhere but in her dreams. The comparison between the two is quite ludicrous since they are running for two completely different offices.
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!!
Obama was 8 years old when he "developed connections with people like...domestic terrorist Bill Ayers." Give me a break...I don't even remember who my school teachers were when I was 8 years old.
No I was referring to "Unless you are eight years old that was the stupidest thing I have read on here....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". Not Obama being 8 years old...what a coincidence. xD
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
- Obama never did anything with Ayers except being on an educational board with Ayers. And Obama himself has called Ayers' former actions "despicable". Associating them because of how they crossed paths is like saying McCain is a Democrat because he's met Obama and even talked with him.
- And FYI, the board Ayers was on donated money to McCain's campaign this year. If anything, I'd call that association, not Obama being on a board.
All the evidence for what I said can be found all over the internet, such as here. Not to dis youtube, but you can find anything on that. Like this or this.
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.
How did Obama use Ayers to advance his career? If you're so smart, then where's your proof? How does Ayers being on the same education board as Obama somehow advance Obama's career? If anything, Ayers only hurt (and is hurting) Obama's career. And where's your evidence that Ayers was "an unrepentant terrorist"? If you'll actually read through the links I provided, you'll see that Ayers condemns terrorism. From Wikipedia: "In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."" Of course, condemning terrorism doesn't mean he WAS a terrorist (I'm sure YOU condemn terrorism too). He (AND HIS PROSECUTORS) never considered what he did to be an act of terrorism. According to Ayers in 2001, "We weren't terrorists. The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States." (from Terry, Don (Chicago Tribune staff reporter, "The calm after the storm", Chicago Tribune Magazine, p 10, September 16, 2001, June 8, 2008) And you said Ayers is not educating the youth because he thinks teachers should provoke resistance to racism and oppression...does that mean you're FOR racism and oppression? Maybe that's why you hate Obama so much and believe all the McCain BS. Why don't you actually go and look at the evidence yourself instead of YouTube videos and McCain lies? Or since you're obviously too bigoted to even read through the evidence I've given, try reading this: "There has been little linking Obama and Ayers. Obama said in September 2008 that he hadn't "seen him in a year-and-a-half." In February 2008, Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement from the senator about the relationship between the two: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous." CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the non-profit projects in which the two men were involved. Internal reviews by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic "have said that their reporting does not support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship". William C. Ibershof, the lead federal prosecutor of the Weather Underground case noted, "I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child."" FYI Ayers isn't even part of the Weathermen any more - how can he be "an active force working to destroy the United States"?
And I am not stupid. I am intelligent enough to know that what I say isn't the most trustworthy source out there, which you somehow seem to assume you are.
Oh so you just excused McCain saying, "I'm too blind to see he's anything but an angel straight from heaven and so whatever he does must be really good. I'm sure he had some good reason for it." You also said, "Idiots liek you use his vote against the Bush tax cuts to say he must be agaionst them." You must be the idiot. Read over my argument. I never mentioned Bush's tax cuts. And btw, of course McCain wouldn't care about tax cuts. He the 8th richest Senator out there. He's worth $42 million dollars, not counting his wife's inheritance of $100 million. He's so filthy rich that he doesn't even know how many multimillion -dollar houses he has (at the last count, he had 8 houses). On the other hand, Obama is only worth $700,000 - every single dollar of which he earned by working his way up from living on food stamps to a successful Senator.McCain’s Tax Cuts Are Aimed At The Rich ‘Even More So Than Bush’s Were’
And fortunately, I do have as much brains as mouth. That's why I actually read the evidence before blabbering like you about empty lies without any backing. And BTW, concerning your comment that "it takes thinking for yourself and not regurgitating party line or campaign swill": I'm a Republican. What party line BS are you talking about? Except because of all these brainless Republicans, I no longer believe McCain/Palin will be a good set of leaders.
Illegal contributions? Oh, GREAT argument. Another factless accusation. Why don't you look at ACTUAL contributions? Like how the oil industry gave McCain $1.1 million.
Wow you have horrible search engine skills. I typed "ayers apology" into Google and every single result on the first page (I didn't have to look further) was about his apology. And btw congrats, your comment about being incompetent at searching is the #9 result on Google for "ayers apology." This is just one such article: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/18/unlv-professor-tv-recalls-kindly-william-ayers/). .)
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.
I'd like to apologize for how I've attacked you in my arguments. I shouldn't have done that. I know you're a intelligent, logical person. I just tend to get carried away sometimes. I'm very sorry.
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.
I know you're not going to respond to this (i.e. your last paragraph) and I know this is a waste of my time, but I'm going to get my last word in.
"Ayers selected Obama to be chairman of an organization funding up to 150 million dollars." How exactly is this an example of Obama using Ayers for his benefit? Ayers selected Obama, not the other way around. It's like arguing Obama used Harvard for his own ends because Harvard selected him to go there. Obviously, it's a bogus argument.
And what homework are you referring to? Unless I'm going blind, I don't see a single link or ANYTHING to any evidence. You've only basically said, "Duh it's common knowledge." Obviously, it isn't. On the other hand, I've provided numerous links to articles from every type of source you could ever want - newspapers to blogs to think tanks.
In fact, if you read the article I found for you using your google search, you'll see that Ayers did apologize. I've already given more than enough proof of it; you just refuse to acknowledge it's true. "Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"" And like I've said numerous times, even the lead prosecutor of Ayer's case says that Ayers wasn't a terrorist. What more proof do you need? Osama bin Ladin saying Ayers wasn't a terrorist?
And I am entirely justified in criticizing Youtube. No youtube video will EVER reach the credibility of organizations like FactCheck and newspapers like the New York Times. And there are things in Wikipedia called "sources." Take a minute to digest the meaning of that word. Now go to ANY wikipedia page and look at the little superscript numbers next to EVERY SINGLE QUOTE ON THE ARTICLE. Yes, wikipedia can be edited by anyone. But every assertation in it has to be supported by outside evidence. In the case of my quote, it was the Chicago Magazine.
And that's not just his definition of terrorism. According to the Princeton University, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature." Ayers never harmed anyone.
And your entire last paragraph is total BS, full of the usual Republican-aficionado rants and ad hominem attacks. Did you run out of responses? I never edited any of your words. I quoted them in context. You never even gave a single example of how I twisted your words. And if I did twist your words, why haven't you said so? The very fact that you argued against every single one of the responses I gave means that I must not have twisted anything; no one in their right mind knowingly supports a position that they don't agree with. And the Youtube video is ACCURATE FOOTAGE?!? You gotta be kidding me. It's simply a collection of photos that I could've patched together...that proves absolutely nothing. The district was like that before Obama, and all that video showed was gang members BEING ARRESTED. Are you saying that arresting gang members isn't progress? So we should let them run amuck in our streets, I'm assuming? The only way the video would prove ANYTHING would be if it showed that crime rates went up as a result of Obama. Which it never does. Which means the video is useless as evidence.
Oh come on Ink...Give the kid a break, he mis-read or mis-understood it and no one said anything about anyone being a child molester. Obama is not and was not trying to misdirect the issue of Bill Ayers and the whole terrorist theme is a bit off the mark. The McCain camp must be stumped for more up-to-date information to hurl Obama's way! You utter the word terrorist today and people think of people such as those who perpetrated 9/11 or the prior garage bombing and such. For Sarah Palin to say Barack Obama is palling around with terrorists is a bit much, to say the least.
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.
I make an exception for those who did what they did in the late 60's, 70's and 80's. Maybe it's because I understood their complaints and NO ONE would listen to them. It was another era but it was the catalyst for many changes to come. It was a time where big government was appalled that one would protest anything beyond holding up a sign and begin to take matters into their own hands. I think it's very different from those who planned and carried out 9/11. You can't color everything with the same box of crayons. My sentiments have nothing to do with Barack Obama outside of the lies some are trying to perpetrate upon the public right now. He doesn't "pal around" with terrorists and you know it Ink! No matter what else you may think of him, that cannot and should not be on the laundry list of complaints.
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.
Ink...as always I respect your opinions BUT...I used my YELLOW crayon and never replaced it! I love yellow for it is the color of sunshine.
I know we don't agree on many things but your rebuttals are always great to read and you are entitled to your well versed and well thought out arguments. I know how deeply you go and I have the utmost respect for you. If others don't understand that, C'est la POO POO!