The Hypocrisy In "Guilty By Association"

Numerous time in the past days i've heard the term "guilt by association" in respsect to Obama's ties with Ayers.

Those defending Obama claim that guilt by association is unfair. The first thing that comes to mind though is how Obama has used guilt by association as a forefront of his campaign. He believes if he ties McCain with Bush than he will indeed move on to win the presidency.

I challenge someone to refute the fact behind that. Why is is fair for one person to use it, but not the other? There are many questions left to be answered in terms of Ayers and it seems anytime they are raised the Obama supporters flam their way out of it.

Obama acts like someone who has something to hide, so why is asking questions such a bad thing?

Again, the meat and bones of this post is to ask, why such a double standard exist?


[edit on 10/10/2008 by AndrewTB]

Damn, talk about calling people out. You hit it on the nail. Obama wants it both ways because he knows this one has legs if people start listening. Just like he says McCain is using smear ads while he slips out his own smear ads.

Good post

good point

it just goes to show you that both sides of the political game are bias and not trustworthy

i guess we shouldnt listen to any of them

Originally posted by muzzleflash
good point

it just goes to show you that both sides of the political game are bias and not trustworthy

i guess we shouldnt listen to any of them

Couldnt have said it any better. But it sucks cause we gotta choose someone anyways. Best way of doing it is picking the guy that gives us the shorter shaft.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by AndrewTB]

Obama is associating McCain with the current administration that he has been apart of, voted with, and supported.

McCain is trying to associate Obama with something Ayers did when he was eight.

That is why people roll their eyes when these accusations come up, and why bringing it up has largely been ineffective in swaying anyone that didn't already think Obama was the Antichrist.

reply to post by davion


Not to be picky, but wasn't Obama a part of private Boards with Ayers (kind of like a private administration), didn't he vote with Ayers on the Boards, and didn't he support Ayers in these ventures?

Ayers has never apologized for his actions. Or, if he has, I've missed it. And, I think that is the link that McCain is trying to make. Obama has worked with a unapologetic domestic bomber/radical and is tied to him in his recent ventures. I know Ayers no longer bombs police headquarters or government buildings, but he has never apologized for it, either.

Judgement and character matter.....on both sides of this campaign. Judgement and character are important parts of the decision making process....no matter the job one has or the office one holds.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by davion

 

Not to be picky, but wasn't Obama a part of private Boards with Ayers (kind of like a private administration), didn't he vote with Ayers on the Boards, and didn't he support Ayers in these ventures?
[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]

He was on a public school reform board with Ayers, which many other people were apart of including Republicans.

It's also worth noting that according to the New York Times, after they looked over the documents that were released by the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, Ayers and Obama only met about six times in board room meetings.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by davion

 

Not to be picky, but wasn't Obama a part of private Boards with Ayers (kind of like a private administration), didn't he vote with Ayers on the Boards, and didn't he support Ayers in these ventures?
[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]

He was on a public school reform board with Ayers, which many other people were apart of including Republicans.

Thats not the point. The point is trying to lie about it and conceal information which Obama IS guilty of.

How convenient for him to forget about the very history you posted.

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Thats not the point. The point is trying to lie about it and conceal information which Obama IS guilty of.

How convenient for him to forget about the very history you posted.

When did he lie about it? Did he ever say he was close to Ayers?

He wasn't appointed to the Challenge by Ayers, he wasn't directly involved with Ayers while working in CAC, in fact according to the documents Ayers was apart of a different aspect and after Obama was brought in didn't have much to do with CAC at all. According to documents it says they were in the same room for a board meeting in 1995 five times, and 1996 once.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by davion]

Actually, Ayers actually said he wished he had done more, [in regards to the bombing].

Either way, I do not want EITHER of these candidates to be my president. Betters start thinking about moving to Canada I guess, eh?

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by AndrewTB

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by davion

 

Not to be picky, but wasn't Obama a part of private Boards with Ayers (kind of like a private administration), didn't he vote with Ayers on the Boards, and didn't he support Ayers in these ventures?
[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]

He was on a public school reform board with Ayers, which many other people were apart of including Republicans.

Thats not the point. The point is trying to lie about it and conceal information which Obama IS guilty of.

How convenient for him to forget about the very history you posted.

When did he lie about it? Did he ever say he was close to Ayers?

He first claimed to not really know Ayers except for the fact that he was a guy that "Lived in his neighborhood".

Why was it necessary for him to say such a thing when he's had what some would consider business ventures with him? I'm sure if you ask the republicans that were there about it they will most likely be honest about it.

The typical Obama supporter believes that if you say something enough it must be true. I'm sorry but this is clear cut. Most people that are bothered by this aren't bothered by the relationship itself, if there even is one, but the fact that he lied about it. It really cant be said anymore clearly.



[edit on 10/10/2008 by AndrewTB]

Originally posted by AndrewTB

He first claimed to not really know Ayers except for the fact that he was a guy that "Lived in his neighborhood".
[edit on 10/10/2008 by AndrewTB]

Lets look at his full quote from the transcript of the debate where he says this:

"SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."

Link

Would you say he lied?

So would it be fair for me to say that I just caught you quote mining? Or rather, you were just following what McCain's campaign has been saying which is in essence quote mining and trying to mislead?

[edit on 10-10-2008 by davion]

reply to post by davion


Yes, Obama lied.

1. He did not mention serving on the CAC at all with Ayers.
2. He also did not mention serving on the Woods Fund Board with Ayers, which he did from 1992 through 2000 (blog.washingtonpost.com...)
3. He did not mention that Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund.
4. He also did not mention that he attended a campaign fundraiser at the Ayers home in 1995.

That's hardly being forthcoming with information.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by davion

 

Yes, Obama lied.

1. He did not mention serving on the CAC at all with Ayers.
2. He also did not mention serving on the Woods Fund Board with Ayers, which he did from 1992 through 2000 (blog.washingtonpost.com...)
3. He did not mention that Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund.
4. He also did not mention that he attended a campaign fundraiser at the Ayers home in 1995.

That's hardly being forthcoming with information.

Beat me to it.

You can call it quote mining davion but what i'm saying holds plenty of credence. You are coming off as the typical denier of the truth.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by davion

 

Yes, Obama lied.

1. He did not mention serving on the CAC at all with Ayers.
2. He also did not mention serving on the Woods Fund Board with Ayers, which he did from 1992 through 2000 (blog.washingtonpost.com...)
3. He did not mention that Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund.
4. He also did not mention that he attended a campaign fundraiser at the Ayers home in 1995.

That's hardly being forthcoming with information.

Can you point me to where people specifically asked him those sorts of questions and he said "No"?

reply to post by AndrewTB


First, let me state that I think the whole 'guilt by association' thing is utter crap. If that were true, then everyone who is a member of ATS is a 'subversive' trying to overthrow the government, just do to association with a site where others have made such a claim. In other words, pure unrefined BS! Now, with that in mind, I wish to comment on your example. Obama had a minimal association with Ayers based on both being Democrats in Chicago. McCain has voted with the Bush Administration 90% of the time. BIG DIFFERENCE! McCain is not guilty by association, he is guilty by his voting record. Apples and Oranges.

reply to post by davion


Maybe a dumb question, but......

He knew he was running for President. He knew people would be looking for dirt on him. Why not just disclose the information instead of having the media or his opponents find it out and use it to raise questions?

If he had done the above, do you think this would be such a big deal to some people? Like I said, judgement and character matter....whether it is associations or lying or withholding pertinent information.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Beat me to it.

You can call it quote mining davion but what i'm saying holds plenty of credence. You are coming off as the typical denier of the truth.

It doesn't hold credence when you're argument was disproved by a direct quote from Obama that you were referring to.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by davion

 

Maybe a dumb question, but......

He knew he was running for President. He knew people would be looking for dirt on him. Why not just disclose the information instead of having the media or his opponents find it out and use it to raise questions?

If he had done the above, do you think this would be such a big deal to some people? Like I said, judgement and character matter....whether it is associations or lying or withholding pertinent information.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by skeptic1]

He never tried to hide it, look at the quote I posted.