Here's the Ad Obama is suing to keep you from watching

reply to post by centurion1211


I have to admit, that is a pretty sad attempt.

Hey, Krieger, at least pick some of the associations in the Keating Five affair. That might make more sense.

Obama DID NOT say that Ayers is respectable and mainstream

And how do you know he didn't? I'm sure we can find a video out there somewhere with him saying it.

They worked together via the Woods Foundation. The Ayers' had him over to their house to introduce him to the Chicago Hyde Park Political Crime syndicate. It's why in the video it mentions that "Obama's career started in Ayer's home". It did start there after his introduction.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by jetxnet]

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I have to admit, that is a pretty sad attempt.

Hey, Krieger, at least pick some of the associations in the Keating Five affair. That might make more sense.

Thanks. And you sure won't find me defending McCain on that sorry state of affairs.

The major difference (outside politics) between me and the obamaphiles. They will (attempt to) defend Obama on every issue (see above and below) - even when what he says and does in indefensible. And that Keating 5 thing is not defensible IMO.

Alas, elections in the U.S. have turned into voting against candidates you don't like over voting for candidates you do.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by jetxnet
And how do you know he didn't? I'm sure we can find a video out there somewhere with him saying it.

For Christ's Sake! I said I posted a link earlier in the thread. Here. And let's see that video!

The Ayers' had him over to their house to introduce him to the Chicago Hyde Park Political Crime syndicate.

Are you aware of the concept of a "source"?

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No one has shown that they are "friends". In fact, Obama denies it and denounces what Ayers did in the past, back when Obama was riding his tricycle.

I don't know, BH. Reading the following doesn't exactly make them look like strangers.

Interaction between Obama and Ayers

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn hosted a "meet-and-greet" political meeting for Obama at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, where the Ayers and the Obamas lived. It was at this meeting that then State Senator Alice Palmer introduced Barack Obama as her chosen successor.[6] Although the exact date of the meeting is not known, it was sometime in the second half of 1995, according to Ben Smith, a reporter for The Politico.[3] Chicagoan Maria Warren wrote in 2005 on her Musings & Migraines blog: "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of [...] Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."[3]

Obama's worked for a time with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a large education-related nonpforit organization Ayers was instrumental in starting. Obama served as president of the Challenge board of directors during the 1990s, when the board disbursed grants to schools and raised private matching funds while Ayers worked with the operational arm of the effort. Both attended some board meetings in common starting in 1995,[7][8]retreats, and at least one news conference together as the education program started. They continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 period when the program was operating.[8]

Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board,[4] which Ayers chaired for two years.[9] Laura S. Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund, said the small board had a collegial "friendly but businesslike" atmosphere, and met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants.[10] The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.[4] One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle.[11] Ayers donated $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate campaign.[12]

Link.

I think if somebody is hosting on your behalf a "meet and greet" to launch your political career...and you've actually stood in their living room...and worked as President in the non-profit organization they founded....and served together on the same 9 member board of another organization...and were together in a number of other public events, panels and speeches, you don't get to pass this off as some distant association.

Really now. Can you dispute any of the above???

[edit on 27-8-2008 by loam]

What? I'm just using the same logic you're using to "prove" Obama will personally bomb every home in America if elected because he now knows a guy who when Obama was 8 blew some stuff up.

How is it any different then using YOUR logic to prove that McCain will personally torture babies if elected because he associated with Communist Torture Masters back in the same time era?

I think if somebody is hosting on your behalf a "meet and greet" to launch your political career...and you've actually stood in their living room...and worked as President in the non-profit organization they founded....and served together on the same 9 member board of another organization...and were together in a number of other public events, panels and speeches, you don't get to pass this off as some distant association.

Really now. Can you dispute any of the above???

Very true. I posted the same text earlier in the thread about the house meeting to launch their friend's career.

BH will just ignore, she often does this when the facts come to light. She just picks and chooses what she can argue, which isn't much.

Nice analysis.

reply to post by centurion1211


Good. I like that you admit that.

I agree.

This election cycle is a complete joke all the way around.

Originally posted by Krieger
What? I'm just using the same logic you're using to "prove" Obama will personally bomb every home in America if elected because he now knows a guy who when Obama was 8 blew some stuff up.

No one I know has ever said that.

The discussion is about character based on who the candidates associate with.

Beyond that explanation, if you still don't understand then sorry, can't help you man.

Have you not read the Neocon posts? Not seen the Neocon BS Ad? It's all about how Obama knows a terrorist and is one and will blow stuff up if elected. Of course its all BS as Obama was 8 when this guy did stuff and he isn't friends with this guy, or supports him, like you and the Neocon posts and ads state.

Originally posted by Krieger
Have you not read the Neocon posts? Not seen the Neocon BS Ad? It's all about how Obama knows a terrorist and is one and will blow stuff up if elected. Of course its all BS as Obama was 8 when this guy did stuff and he isn't friends with this guy, or supports him, like you and the Neocon posts and ads state.

I've read the posts. Now I suggest you take a deep breath and go back and watch the ad again. It doesn't say anything that you are saying it does.

Let me try an analogy for you. If you happened to meet Timothy McVeigh and he seemed like a nice enough normal guy to you. Then after you found out the truth about him, is there any way you could make yourself stand in front of a camera and microphone and tell the world you thought he was mainstream and respectable? McVeigh and Ayers are basically the same kind of people.

You see, if Obama had the character required to be president, then he should not have been able to do that for Ayers either.



[edit on 8/27/2008 by centurion1211]

You realize how blatant your lies are when you post in a topic that proves my point. This entire topic proves what I am saying. This topic, and that ad existing, prove my point. Every post in this topic proves what I am saying. You, me, BH, everyone. The fact that this topic exists proves everything that I am saying.

reply to post by Krieger


What is it you are saying again?

The topic exists because the Media won't tell you about it. Anything true about Obama or that would hurt his chances of becoming POTUS is suppressed and spinned by the MSM.

It's because the CEOs of MSNBC etc. want Obama to win the POTUS. Why? Because the MSM will get full control of the Internet.

You will have to pay to visit the sites you like and the MSM will control this and most information.

Let me break it down for ya a bit:

MSM and Google CEOs want Obama to POTUS.

Obama wants to give the MSM and Google full control of the Internet which means everything can and would be censored (much like in a Communist society).

Obama would have control of the Internet by proxy through the MSM and Google.

It's part of the New World Order initiative.

Now imagine if Obama gets to POTUS, passes legislation that allows Google and the MSM to consume the Internet.

Because he owns everything, you will only get one-side of the story, much like you are from the MSM now.

The MSM hates sites like ATS and Blogsphere because it is the last thing left for getting truth out to the people. Not what they want you to see, but the truth.

Make sense?

It should. It's about power, control, money and greed.

Originally posted by Krieger
You realize how blatant your lies are when you post in a topic that proves my point. This entire topic proves what I am saying. This topic, and that ad existing, prove my point. Every post in this topic proves what I am saying. You, me, BH, everyone. The fact that this topic exists proves everything that I am saying.

You're starting to sound way too maniacal for me to continue responding to you. I've tried nicely every way I can to explain what for some reason you still cannot or will not understand. Either way, it is nothing worth getting as worked up over as you seem to be. OK? Would you consider just putting down the keyboard for awhile?

Good day (night).

reply to post by loam


The logic in that ad and in these posts is that since Obama knows a guy who blew up buildings when he was 8 he will now blow up buildings because he's a terrorist.

So using that same logic since McCain "associated" with men who tortured Americans he will do the same. Sure he was one of the ones being tortured but hey, Obama was 8 when this guy blew stuff up and the Neocons, and that ad, claim he's a terrorist now because he knows a guy who used to blow buildings up.

And so this topic, that ad, and every post in this topic proves my point. Using the same logic as the logic used in that ad and in these posts, McCain will torture American citizens.

Does not matter who you choose, America is screwed what ever happens, they are all one big family, all royal bloodlines, its one big happy families.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


I researched this a little and it doesn't look like they're actually suing yet. They wrote a letter to the DOJ which you can read at the link below:

I tried that link and couldn't get in. The usual "garbage" came up and said said they were "protecting you" and you have to click on the X in order for it to come up. After I did that and just got a repeat to "click on the X" I gave up. Doesn't look like the powers that be want us reading that.

Originally posted by Krieger
reply to post by loam

 

The logic in that ad and in these posts is that since Obama knows a guy who blew up buildings when he was 8 he will now blow up buildings because he's a terrorist.

The ad NEVER says or implies any of that. Rather, it suggests Obama had a friendly and approving association with Ayers. And that by virtue of that relationship, supports views too extreme for the Office.

I don't think the ad is very good anyway.

If it's purpose was to serve as red meat to those likely to already oppose Obama, then I suppose it makes them more resolute. But as a vote conversion vehicle, I think it falls short.

The peculiar anti-truther association (whether intended or not and mentioned in my previous post) and the feigned surprise of the narrator's voice make this ad sound like a political "hit job".

That was a big mistake, imo.

If they wanted converts, they should have made it sound more factual and unembellished.

If the associations I printed earlier are true.

And if this is true:



This subject could easily still have legs.

If it had been done properly and released at the beginning of the primary season to a wider audience, Obama would have been washed out of Primary season in the first or second month.

BTW, has anyone checked Obama's site to see how Obama used the words "respectable" and "mainstream"? I haven't yet.

Finally, it's colossally stupid for them to react to this ad in the manner they have. If anything, it grants it far more visibility than I would have thought they wanted. Moreover, if the details are factually correct and sufficiently proven, then Obama looks even worse.

They should have just dismissed it, made everyone know they were dismissing it, and hoped for the best.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by loam]

They are implying that Obama will do what Ayers did. Blow stuff up. Even though he isn't friends with Ayers. And when Ayers did blow stuff up he was 8. But that doesn't matter to the Neocons. By their logic Obama being on the same Board as Ayers means Obama is a terrorist and will blow stuff up. So the opposite, by their logic, means McCain will torture people because he "associated" with torturers.