Obama and Ayers

[JLTucker]

On this forum I visit (I won't link to it here because of a word in the url) there's a user who keeps bringing up Obama's connection to Bill Ayers and how Obama lied about said connection, how Obama was a member of New Party, and is a long-time associate of a criminal slumlord. I ignored the bit about the New Party and the criminal slumlord. I realize that was a huge mistake on my part. Anyway, I gave him a link to FactCheck.org that debunks the exaggerated connection between Obama and Ayers and that Obama lied. He just responds saying that the evidence I provided is wrong and that Obama did indeed lie. I am a shittastic debater and I would love some help, if you guys don't mind.

Background on the thread: The thread was created about the PalinAsPresident website but diverted into a serious discussion about Palin if she did indeed become president. The relevant posts in regards to Obama and Ayers.

Second, I find it laughable that people care about THIS, but do not seem bothered by the fact that Obama is the bosom-child of an unapologetic domestic terrorist (and lied about it), was a member of the New Party (socialist group formed by the DSA), was a long-time associate of a criminal slumlord with whom he exchanged favors to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (instead of protecting his district from the slumlord, which was his ****ing job as their representative)... **** it, this paragraph is going to be a mile long, and a lot of you are such Obama fanboys that you really don't care.

Second, I find it laughable that people care about THIS, but do not seem bothered by the fact that Obama is the bosom-child of an unapologetic domestic terrorist (and lied about it),

You really need to drop this because this argument has been blown to bits. Read that link. There are sources. Drop this bull**** argument.

You really need to drop this because this argument has been blown to bits. Read that link. There are sources. Drop this bull**** argument

First, it does not escape my attention that you had no response to the other two examples I presented.

Second, I only had to read one paragraph into the "fact check" to find the blatant idiocy upon which they base their main premise. "New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false." Excuse me? Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulis to EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP - and Obama's explanation was simply that he knows Ayers, the guy lives in his neighborhood, etc. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE. Obama concealed the fact that he worked two legal jobs attained by the influence of Ayers in Chicago, starting in 1988, seven years before Ayers launched his career in politics in 1995; that he met his wife at one of these jobs; that Ayers launched his career into politics; that Ayers was the founder of the CAC for which he was awarded the chairmanship (and there is no doubt whatsoever that Ayers had a say in who was chosen); that he and Ayers funelled money to left-wing groups such as ACORN and the Arab American Action Network from their positions on the CAC and the Woods Fund (where Ayers also had pull - his father was an energy industry associate of the Sahara Coal Company, run by a Woods at the time); that they turned down math and science programs in favor of programs that teach kids to be activists (read a little bit about Ayers' "educational philosophy"); that he has Marilyn Katz, a longtime friend of Ayers and fellow member of SDS, helping to finance his campaign; that Katz had introduced him to an "activist network" in Chicago; that Katz organized the 2002 demonstration where he went public with his opposition to the Iraq War; that he and Ayers spoke together on panels coordinated by Michelle Obma; that he provided a blurb for Ayers' book...

Even CNN has now debunked the **** out of Obama's description of the relationship, which means Obama LIED. An intentional deception by leaving out numerous key facts is called a LIE.

Factcheck even attempts to argue the point of whether Ayers' works were acts of terrorism. Apparently they need a dictionary - "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." GTFO.

Another member responds to Raistlin and Railin posts a link to The Slipping Mask. I am currently reading the section of that blog on Obama and Ayers.

[Darth Wong]

Let me get this straight: right-wingers think that Obama should be found guilty by association with Ayers, who did some bad things three decades ago but whose only recent sin is hating the military-industrial complex (as if that's so unusual or shocking). But they also think it's completely unreasonable to tie McCain to George W. Bush, whose misdeeds and sins were committed far more recently, and which McCain actively supported when they were being committed.

Nice double standard.