Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is the problem with people who hate Obama.

They jump off the deep end on every single issue.

President Obama was in the same neighborhood and social circle as Ayers? TERRORISM

President Obama talks about how we all benefit from public infrastructure and services? YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT

President Obama talks about "redistribution" because that's what a progressive tax is? COMMUNISM

More than anything else it's this attitude that is going to cost the Republicans this year. There's that squishy 7% of independents who don't hate Obama, and are turned off by this crap.

Republicans would be more successful if they tried to argue their points without lying about the other guy all the time.

That was the military actually. Yea they sucked.
The guerillas were in El Salvador fighting the sandanistas in neighboring Nicaragua.

 reds8n wrote:

but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported).

I don't think the Russians would agree here

Touche... you have a point.

I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!

Victory proved that Allah was on their side AFAIK

erm... okay?

ANY politician (with (R) or (D) ) with Obama's history/association would've never made it. That just shows how powerful as a candidate and compaigner Obama is...

Possibly.


... I'm sure there's a line here about how it would have been better for him to remain as an unknown but I can't be bothered

Red... that's during Reagan's Presidency... the association in question with Obama was BEFORE he ran for office. My point still stands...

.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?

Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.

TheHammer wrote:
This is the problem with people who hate Obama.

They jump off the deep end on every single issue.

President Obama was in the same neighborhood and social circle as Ayers? TERRORISM

...

The other thing about constantly raising pathetic points that obviously don't get any traction with any voter who isn't a confirmed Republican is that it give the impression that Republicans don't have anything substantive to sling at Obama.

Exactly. There are lots of factual things the Republicans could criticize Obama for, although few are areas where I think the Republican alternative would be better but that's why Romney is so vague. Instead those legitimate concerns are laughed at because the Republicans have done a great job of marginalizing themselves.

 reds8n wrote:
.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?

Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.

Big Ole Moustache wasn't in the US at the time, nor did he kill Americans. Rumsfeld didn't run for office. A person who helped kill a police officer was Obama's mentor. You would never have heard the end of it if it were a conservative.

Kind of like how Ayers managed to be come a college professor in the first place...

Four More Years! Four More Years!

 reds8n wrote:
.. yyeess.... and then what happened ? Rummy just upped and disappeared from public office then did he ?

Whilst the weathermen did some crappy things I wouldn't quite put them in the same league as ol' big moustache there.

I'm not equate between the two... are you?

But being associated with someone who was part of a known DOMESTIC terrorist organization SHOULD'VE had more play... that's all I'm saying.

President Obama's "association" with Ayers has been talked about way more than Romney's association with Salvadoran death squads and drug dealers.

And all you're saying is rubbish. Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist, and then using outrage when it isn't talked about as much as you'd like.

TheHammer wrote:
President Obama's "association" with Ayers has been talked about way more than Romney's association with Salvadoran death squads and drug dealers.

And all you're saying is rubbish. Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist, and then using outrage when it isn't talked about as much as you'd like.

See what I mean.

 Frazzled wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
President Obama's "association" with Ayers has been talked about way more than Romney's association with Salvadoran death squads and drug dealers.

And all you're saying is rubbish. Stop trying to make an issue where one doesn't exist, and then using outrage when it isn't talked about as much as you'd like.

See what I mean.

Yup .

Awwww, it's cute when you people try to dog pile.

TheHammer wrote:
Awwww, it's cute when you people try to dog pile.

TBone likes to use the big dog's butt as a pillow. Th big dog hates this like an older brother can't stand his little brother. I will miss TBone very much.

No I disagree completely.

I'm not equate between the two... are you?

You might not be intending to but you most certainly are. At least the way you're phrasing things.

I think if you ( in the general sense) were a good friend of a still committed demostic (sic) terrorist then you'd have an issue indeed.

Seeing as the person in question repented -- like good christians are supposed to do -- and admitted his wrong doing and actively turned towards working towards peaceful solutions ... I'm alright with it.

I could/can certainly understand how friends/families/etc of those who suffered from the actions of the Weathermen could have an issue with forgiving Ayers and Co. ... and I feel very sorry for them and empathise immensely with them.

Saddam meanwhile was a brutal, violent dictator who used poison gas and chemical weapons -- with a little help of course -- who did indeed go on to be responsible for the deaths of Americans ( and, of course other coalition troops, innocent Kuwaitis etc etc ).

I think his actions were far worse than anything that Ayers et al did, and yet the fact that his regime was propped up and actively aided by Rumsfeld and Co. is... fine and dandy.

Rumsfeld didn't run for office

, yeah, he was totally unimportant and not involved in decision making at all.

 reds8n wrote:
No I disagree completely.

I'm not equate between the two... are you?

You might not be intending to but you most certainly are. At least the way you're phrasing things.

I think if you ( in the general sense) were a good friend of a still committed demostic (sic) terrorist then you'd have an issue indeed.

Seeing as the person in question repented -- like good christians are supposed to do -- and admitted his wrong doing and actively turned towards working towards peaceful solutions ... I'm alright with it.

I could/can certainly understand how friends/families/etc of those who suffered from the actions of the Weathermen could have an issue with forgiving Ayers and Co. ... and I feel very sorry for them and empathise immensely with them.

Saddam meanwhile was a brutal, violent dictator who used poison gas and chemical weapons -- with a little help of course -- who did indeed go on to be responsible for the deaths of Americans ( and, of course other coalition troops, innocent Kuwaitis etc etc ).

I think his actions were far worse than anything that Ayers et al did, and yet the fact that his regime was propped up and actively aided by Rumsfeld and Co. is... fine and dandy.

Rumsfeld didn't run for office

, yeah, he was totally unimportant and not involved in decision making at all.

Wait you're saying Ayers repented?

 reds8n wrote:
No I disagree completely.

I'm not equate between the two... are you?

You might not be intending to but you most certainly are. At least the way you're phrasing things.

Sorry... not trying to as they're two separate issues (and they are issues).

I think if you ( in the general sense) were a good friend of a still committed demostic (sic) terrorist then you'd have an issue indeed.

Seeing as the person in question repented -- like good christians are supposed to do -- and admitted his wrong doing and actively turned towards working towards peaceful solutions ... I'm alright with it.

You might be alright with it... but I'm NOT.

I could/can certainly understand how friends/families/etc of those who suffered from the actions of the Weathermen could have an issue with forgiving Ayers and Co. ... and I feel very sorry for them and empathise immensely with them.

So I have to be the friends/family/etc in order to make the claim that I have issues with that? Woah...

Saddam meanwhile was a brutal, violent dictator who used poison gas and chemical weapons -- with a little help of course -- who did indeed go on to be responsible for the deaths of Americans ( and, of course other coalition troops, innocent Kuwaitis etc etc ).

I think his actions were far worse than anything that Ayers et al did, and yet the fact that his regime was propped up and actively aided by Rumsfeld and Co. is... fine and dandy.

Again... two separate issues...

Rumsfeld didn't run for office

, yeah, he was totally unimportant and not involved in decision making at all.

Separate issues.

1) We're talking about past associates PRIOR to Obama running for office... that's fair game.

2) Reagan was President when that happened...

You seem to be labouring under the idea that I'm on about Reagan here.

I'm not, I'm saying that Rumsfeld's actions , IMO, disqualify him for holding any high office at a later date, far more so than an acquaintance with Ayers that Obama had.

That's why they're not separate issues.

If one is claiming that a prior association with a "bad person" is a black mark on them or possibly should even preclude them from holding a position of importance at a later date then the situations are exactly analogous.

Wait you're saying Ayers repented

.. I don't see this as being more laughable than your fraudulent claim that Ayers was a "mentor" to Obama.

Frazzled; have you ever stopped to consider the idea that while the MSM might in general favour Obama, any effects of this are completely negated by how fervently one-sided Fox News is for the GOP?

I really think you should stop harping about the left-leaning bias of the mainstream media while Fox News is still on the air. It's akin to wearing a Yankees jersey and complaining that the teams aren't fair.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Frazzled; have you ever stopped to consider the idea that while the MSM might in general favour Obama, any effects of this are completely negated by how fervently one-sided Fox News is for the GOP?

I really think you should stop harping about the left-leaning bias of the mainstream media while Fox News is still on the air. It's akin to wearing a Yankees jersey and complaining that the teams aren't fair.

You're right. One cable station completely hammers CBS, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, CNN, ABC, Pravda er the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Thats one badass network I must say. Of course CBS, NBC, and ABC have higher ratings but don't let that get in the way.

Media bias is one of those accusations that are great. They are imposible to disprove (or prove), and thus can be made with virtual impunity.

 Polonius wrote:
Media bias is one of those accusations that are great. They are imposible to disprove (or prove), and thus can be made with virtual impunity.

Sixty percent of the viewing public no longer trusts the media. The percentage of distrust is highest among Republicans and Independents. The group with the highest trust level is Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
Studies have shown that reporters are heavily overweighted towards being registered Democrats.

Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.

 Ahtman wrote:
Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.

Always a cute catchphrase that.

I prefer this one: Living has been proven to be a direct cause of death.

Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.

Always a cute catchphrase that.

I prefer this one: Living has been proven to be a direct cause of death.

There is some truth to the liberal bias quote. And this is not so much because "the Dems are correct" (you'll never hear me say that without severe qualification); but because reality tends to me somewhere in the middle for obvious reasons, and the Republicans have moved their own goalposts so far to the right that much of their rhetoric is now just as grounded in reality as most Philip K. Dick novels.

And Frazzled, you're operating on some strange logic here: you seem to be under the impression that people are mistrustful of the media because it sometimes says things that they do not believe to be true; however this is not comparable to the media actually saying things that are evidently untrue. Fox News tends to perform the latter function, and then sounds the alarm that the rest of the media is lying to make them look bad.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Studies have also shown that reality has a liberal bias.

Always a cute catchphrase that.

I prefer this one: Living has been proven to be a direct cause of death.

There is some truth to the liberal bias quote. And this is not so much because "the Dems are correct" (you'll never hear me say that without severe qualification); but because reality tends to me somewhere in the middle for obvious reasons, and the Republicans have moved their own goalposts so far to the right that much of their rhetoric is now just as grounded in reality as most Philip K. Dick novels.

And Frazzled, you're operating on some strange logic here: you seem to be under the impression that people are mistrustful of the media because it sometimes says things that they do not believe to be true; however this is not comparable to the media actually saying things that are evidently untrue. Fox News tends to perform the latter function, and then sounds the alarm that the rest of the media is lying to make them look bad.

I trust the poll like I trust unfettered market pricing. It represents the wisdom of hundreds of thousands of individual decisions. (ok thousands in the case of a poll). There is wisdom and logic there. There's no way you successfully argue the MSM is not biased, any more than I could argue talk radio is not biased.

EDIT: to the quote: reality has a ;iberal bias.
Really? The Middle East and the Stans pretty much blow that out of the water. Indeed the US has ebbed and flowed on many issues, and will continue to do so.

TheHammer wrote:
Exactly. There are lots of factual things the Republicans could criticize Obama for, although few are areas where I think the Republican alternative would be better but that's why Romney is so vague. Instead those legitimate concerns are laughed at because the Republicans have done a great job of marginalizing themselves.

This describes it perfectly.

It has been proven that Obama has violated the Constitution with Gitmo and other stuff. This is not a matter of opinion; its a matter of fact.

But Romney plans on violating the Constitution even more, so he can't insult Obama regarding that.

 Frazzled wrote:

Here we have to respectfully disagree. If there were a Republican candidate, there would have been an endless drumbeat about it. After al the MSM went berserk about a story of a prank, decades ago from the Romney past. Now put cocaine use and having your mentor being a Weatherman, and they would have been all over it like flies on roadkill.

The Ayers story was headline news for a good few months. Compare this to Bush II's drug and alcohol abuse about which very little was said.

I think you're beginning from a position that assumes a particular kind of media bias, and trying to shape evidence to fit that position. You may also just be more sensitive to stories about Republicans, and so perceive them as being more pervasive than they actually are.

 Frazzled wrote:

There's no way you successfully argue the MSM is not biased, any more than I could argue talk radio is not biased.

Sure you can, and one easy way of doing it is by noting how the label "MSM" tends to mean "all media that isn't conservative."

 Frazzled wrote:

Sixty percent of the viewing public no longer trusts the media. The percentage of distrust is highest among Republicans and Independents. The group with the highest trust level is Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

Is that because of a liberal bias in media, or in an anti-media bias in conservatism?

 Frazzled wrote:
And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.

And now it's clear Fraz is entirely ignorant of the religious right. Whether that's through choice or circumstance, I don't know.

And you insistence that Ayers was a mentor of Obama is just nonsense. Absolute piffle. Poppycock. Nonsense. The claims or a man who does not care about reality. It isn't true. We've all known it wasn't true since 2008.

And I think that thing the conservatives call the mainstream media would do exactly as good a job of hyping up and generally inventing an exciting but untrue fiction about any loose acquaintance between a former terrorist and future president.

Thats the very definition of "not charity." Its easy to be cahritable with other people's money.

Charity is giving to someone in need. Everything else is just spank you and other right wingers have made up inside your heads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I mean lets get real. If the Republicans had a half decent candidate they would be stomping Obama like bad cheese right now.

'If' is what losers talk about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Not to get too OT, but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported). I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!

Basically, when an empire invades your country, and begins using heavily armed helicopter gunships in reprisal attacks against civilian populations, people go a little nuts. When another empire supplies your insurgency with high end weapons, people remain about as nuts. When the first empire retreats, and the second empire walks away thinking the job is done, and the people are left with a collection of bomb craters where they country used to be, then everyone goes really nuts.

And it needs to be clarified that the Americans didn't work with the Taliban. They worked with other insurgent groups in the country, groups that would later be known as the Northern Alliance - the guys who fought a losing war against the Taliban until the US led invasion in 2001.

Saying the US worked with the Taliban is a bit like claiming that Ayers mentored Obama. It's just a product of political system where a significant number of people think it's their job to make up lies about the other side.