Palin makes Obama terrorist claim

**Jet Gorgon** · 07-10-2008, 09:34 AM

^ Oh. It's wiki so it must be god speaking.

**AntRobertson** · 07-10-2008, 09:41 AM

Well this is clearly a calculated smear campaign and just goes to show how desperate the Republicans are getting in my opinion. They've already largely failed to link Obama to Islamic extremists so are now going for home-grown ones.

Frankly I think the whole thing has massive potential to backfire on them. The only people likely to give this any traction are those that want to believe it, those that weren't going to vote for Obama in the first place no matter what. For the others who may have been undecided this display of underhanded sniping may just tip them towards the Dems.

**spiff** · 07-10-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Oh. It's wiki so it must be god speaking.

Nonsense, it is sourced from the actual interview from "Johann Hari - archive". Yes, Hitchens a neo-con, doll.

**barbaro** · 07-10-2008, 11:39 AM

Here's refutation of the accusations on the "terrorist" connection.

Yes, this article is a little biased and strong, but the list itself goes into detail:

John K. Wilson

Posted October 6, 2008 | 08:04 AM (EST)

Over Two Dozen Lies Refuted About Ayers And Obama

Link for the list: John K. Wilson: Over Two Dozen Lies Refuted About Ayers And Obama

**GooMaiRoo** · 07-10-2008, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Oh. It's wiki so it must be god speaking.

Citing Wiki was pure laziness on my part. Sorry. Try this article from one of my favorite magazines, "The American Conservative". The title of the Hitchens story is "The Purest Neocon". I don't like Hitchens, but he's a clever guy and a non-liberal who smelled something wrong in the 2004 presidential elections and wrote a powerful article on the subject.

The American Conservative -- The Purest Neocon

**jim1176** · 07-10-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by jandajoy

US Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has accused the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, of associating with terrorists.

Already thought she was an airhead, these comments only reconfirm.

Anyone have a pic of her bush I can use as an avatar

**spiff** · 07-10-2008, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

How would you feel if McCain worked with and associated with a man and wife who bombed abortion clinics? </b>

You mean, associated with a man (and his wife) who is a Distinguished Professor at a reputable university, but had been, together with his wife, a prominent part in an organisation which bombed abortion clinics when McCain was 8 years old, but were now organising education programs in the Christian community?

I suppose I'd be looking at McCain's policies and voting record to see if his views are influenced or bear similarities to the former bombers group's ideology.

And with all the drummed up circumstancial evidence of guilt by association, it is this last bit of actual proof in the chain of reasoning which is completely missing in the Obama smear. Any resemblance of his aims to that of the wheathermen? - none whatsoever have been shown.

**barbaro** · 08-10-2008, 03:32 AM

Here is a response to Palin's terrorist claim.

Funny how Palin used the word "terrorist" in this day and age, when this incident is....40 years old.

Note: this youtube video is biased:

**attaboy** · 11-10-2008, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by spiff

Originally Posted by attaboy

How would you feel if McCain worked with and associated with a man and wife who bombed abortion clinics? </b>

You mean, associated with a man (and his wife) who is a Distinguished Professor at a reputable university, but had been, together with his wife, a prominent part in an organisation which bombed abortion clinics when McCain was 8 years old, but were now organising education programs in the Christian community?

I suppose I'd be looking at McCain's policies and voting record to see if his views are influenced or bear similarities to the former bombers group's ideology.

And with all the drummed up circumstancial evidence of guilt by association, it is this last bit of actual proof in the chain of reasoning which is completely missing in the Obama smear. Any resemblance of his aims to that of the wheathermen? - none whatsoever have been shown.

There is something you left out of the scenario. Ayers has not paid his debt to society and he is unrepentant. I understand he was not convicted.

From a 2004 interview with Public Television:

Public Broadcasting Service: In the film, Mark Rudd talks about his qualms and his very divided feelings about what he did. You don’t make any equivalent statement, and I wondered why not… How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?

Bill Ayers: I’ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it’s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful?… I don’t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable.

Two thousand people a day were being murdered in Vietnam in a terrorist war, an official terrorist war… This was what was going on in our names. So we tried to resist it, tried to fight it. Built a huge mass movement, built a huge organization, and still the war went on and escalated. And every day we didn’t stop the war, two thousand people would be killed. I don’t think what we did was extreme…. We didn’t cross lines that were completely unacceptable. I don’t think so. We destroyed property in a fairly restrained level, given what we were up against.

The man when interviewed believes he didn't do anything "horrendous" or "awful". He's okay with what he and his wife are responsible for. He's okay with bombing and mayhem as a form of political activism. 'Fk the system', 'fk civil order', because in his personal opinion the system was egregiously out of whack. So he feels (I say 'feels' not 'felt' because he says he's okay with what he did) justified in imposing his view upon others in the form of physical violence to the point of destroying civil order and plunging millions into anarchy and the random irrational brutality it brings with it. He is willing to destroy the lives of millions because of a viewpoint he read in philosophy books and decided to apply to society. His solution is violence. He's unrepentant and he's teaching our children at university.

Obama is ok with associating with that guy, channeling foundation grants to him and launching his (Obama's) political career at his (Ayers') home. He's ok with a guy who believes violence is a legitimate means to obtain a political goal. I think this is poor judgment on Obama's part.

Here's the other thing. Obama, as I posted in my other topic, was surrounded by communists growing up. He no doubt read book about communism. I'm willing to bet he has learned that ethics and morality are the tools of the establishment to keep us down. Lying is ok. The end justifies the means. Or as Malcolm X said "by any means necessary", including lying through your teeth.

Knowing that he hangs out with extreme leftists who see no problem with bombing their way out of what they perceive to be a jam, I don't trust the guy not to circumvent procedure. I don't trust him not to operate outside the law in the name of expediency. I don't trust him not to take away more of my liberties in the name of expediency or in the name of the collective good.

I don't know how many fleas he picked up laying down with the commies.

I would have preferred he spent 12 years in the Senate and established a track recored before having a go at the wheel.

**ChiangMai noon** · 11-10-2008, 07:40 AM

Whatever, looks like it's backfiring on Mcain.

these are the most up to date polls 10/10.....

**sabang** · 11-10-2008, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by attaboy

There is something you left out of the scenario. Ayers has not paid his debt to society and he is unrepentant. I understand he was not convicted.

Kennedy got away with Chippaquadick, Bush walked away from a couple of drink driving and (allegedly) drug incidents thanks to his family- not to mention Vietnam. Whatever. If Ayers did not pay his debt to society, he has certainly subsequently contributed to society.

These lame attempts to lambast Ayers in a bid to get at Obama are pathetic, real loser stuff. As I've pointed out, a whole slew of respected publications have investigated their association and concluded they were not even particularly close, not to mention that the terrorist incidents happened forty years ago, when Obama was eight. So they sat on the same charity board- big whooppee doo.

A lot has changed since then, in case the Republican Right hasn't noticed. The Vietnam War is over- and history has shown that a lot of what the radicals and dissidents were on about was right- agent Orange, Nixons secret war and so on. We now have computers, and the internet even. The decade of love is over, was a long ago guys. Flower power is not the modern day youth culture anymore- ferk knows what is. The Berlin Wall has come down, and the Soviet Union has disintegrated! Yes honestly guys- you can even look it up on the Internet!

And guess what- Bill Ayers has changed too. He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois, holding the title of Distinguished Professor. In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on public school reform. I would not be surprised if, after Obama is safely ensconced as President

, he then proceeds to make a few million bucks by suing the arse off these appalling, politically motivated libels and slanders.

Seriously fella's, pull your head out your arse and live in the present- this is just pathetic. We and the USA face considerably more pressing problems than Vietnam this century. What does McCain propose to do about them? America's role in the world is changing, as the world is changing. How does McCain propose to deal with it?

Or do you just want to live in the past, and blame Hippies for losing in Vietnam? If so, vote Republican.

**attaboy** · 09-06-2009, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by flash

The convention was in 1994 she wasn't mayor until 1996.

Look at her children in the video. It can't be from 1994.

**foreigner** · 10-06-2009, 12:01 AM

Sarah (many of the biblical perversion) believe man & dinosaurs co-existed. Sarah has actually seen the foot prints of a man inside the footprint of a dinosaur.

Sarah (+ the State of Kansas board of education) believe the "Flintstones" was a documentary.

**barbaro** · 10-06-2009, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by foreigner

Sarah (many of the biblical perversion) believe man & dinosaurs co-existed. Sarah has actually seen the foot prints of a man inside the footprint of a dinosaur.

Sarah (+ the State of Kansas board of education) believe the "Flintstones" was a documentary.

Yes, the Young Earther groups of Xtians that believe humans co-existed with dinosaurs.

Palin has been accused of believing in this, but she's never discussed it.

I'd like to see the question asked to her directly.

Has any person asked her this on film?

**Boon Mee** · 12-06-2009, 10:33 PM

David Gibson asks "Why did the press ignore the firebombing of Sarah Palin’s church?" in his Examiner column this guy then offers some possibilities.

“ A quick internet search on the church fire will yield some coverage on a few obscure websites, but beyond Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren’s coverage which lasted only a few days, there was no major media attention given to the crime.
So why would the press ignore the story?

In my opinion, the following could be a few of the reasons:

1) The Wasilla Bible Church has an all-white congregation (While the oft race-baiting press is always quick to cover a predominantly black church being fire-bombed in an attempt to re-inflame the hostilities of the civil rights era, coverage of white victims in the very Republican state of Alaska may evoke sympathy for the wrong side of the aisle.

2) Gov. Sarah Palin and her family have been the target of vile attacks from the mainstream media. Gov. Palin has been demonized by the press, and every attempt has been made to discredit her and humiliate her children. CBS‘s ‘Late Show’ host David Letterman recently went so far as to describe Gov. Palin as a “slutty flight attendant,” and even suggested that her 14-year-old daughter had been “knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez” during a Yankees game.

3) Perhaps, the most important reason why the press has chosen not to cover the story is that during the months after Palin was chosen as John McCain’s running mate, teams of Democratic Party operatives swarmed the Wasilla area in an attempt to uncover any dirt that could be used against the Governor.

Could it be that a few of the more zealous Democrat operatives stayed-on and took their devotion to party a step further, and actually set the blaze?…Such a discovery would be disastrous to the left. Faced with this possibility the mainstream media may have decided not to explore the crime too deeply."

We're living the Nazi dream here folks...

**barbaro** · 13-06-2009, 02:04 AM

^ Good to see you, Boon. I was wondering where you were.

I remember reading the story of Palin's church being bombed/set on fire. With all of the things and issues going on, and her being a defeated ex-candidate it's not a story that would get much attention from viewers, IMO.

**Jet Gorgon** · 13-06-2009, 02:42 AM

^ hehe. Unlike Letterman making an obscene joke about her young daughter at a baseball game (what was it, she feked a player?). No coverage of that except on FOX. So, if Letterman is still attacking her family still, she must have some presence. But, David is such a BO pansy, he's run out of material.

**barbaro** · 13-06-2009, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ hehe. Unlike Letterman making an obscene joke about her young daughter at a baseball game (what was it, she feked a player?). No coverage of that except on FOX. So, if Letterman is still attacking her family still, she must have some presence. But, David is such a BO pansy, he's run out of material.

I am watching FOX casually just to see what they are doing. Yes, lots of talk about the Letterman joke and the Palin response.

Complete waste of time, with all of the serious issues involved. A non-story made into a story by the media.

And yes, CNN and other news outlets did cover this joke & subsequent responses by Letterman and Palin.

A non-story made into a story by the Mainstream media.

**Jet Gorgon** · 13-06-2009, 03:54 AM

^ Sure, yawn. If it was Obama's kids there would have been a media blitz. Kids are off limits, IMO. Low blow for Letterman.

**barbaro** · 13-06-2009, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Sure, yawn. If it was Obama's kids there would have been a media blitz. Kids are off limits, IMO. Low blow for Letterman.

If it was about Obama's kids it would still be a non-story story, IMO.

Tabloid, is tabloid.

The topic in this instance is Palin & Letterman. No one else.

**Boon Mee** · 13-06-2009, 06:23 AM

^
Letterman is an ass. Can't stand the creep...

**Jet Gorgon** · 13-06-2009, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Sure, yawn. If it was Obama's kids there would have been a media blitz. Kids are off limits, IMO. Low blow for Letterman.

If it was about Obama's kids it would still be a non-story story, IMO.

Tabloid, is tabloid.

The topic in this instance is Palin & Letterman. No one else.

If a right-wing comedian said something so asinine about BO, it would be on the front page of the NY Times et al.

**barbaro** · 13-06-2009, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Sure, yawn. If it was Obama's kids there would have been a media blitz. Kids are off limits, IMO. Low blow for Letterman.

If it was about Obama's kids it would still be a non-story story, IMO.

Tabloid, is tabloid.

The topic in this instance is Palin & Letterman. No one else.

If a right-wing comedian said something so asinine about BO, it would be on the front page of the NY Times et al.

See my post above that you quoted. The issue is not about anything but:

Palin and Letterman.

Limbaugh has made a few jokes about BO's children. Certainly not like Letterman's which was a bit in poor taste, but Limbaugh and others have "went after the family."

I agree that family should be off limits for jokes & attacks.

Again, why are we even discussing David Letterman, the host of a late night show and former VP candidate of the last election?

I'm discussing it - I'm caught - basically saying once again, that this is a non-story story.

But I'm discussing it, because others are. And it's on the TV now. (I'm only watching TV because I'm visiting the USA, right now and want to observe how bad it is).

**Rural Surin** · 13-06-2009, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Sure, yawn. If it was Obama's kids there would have been a media blitz. Kids are off limits, IMO. Low blow for Letterman.

The Prez' children are a different game. Chances are you wouldn't here such musings in that vain from any venue towards any Presidents' children. Not considered in good taste. Shots at the President? No problem. But not the kids. Just might have a friendly visit by Treasury agents. And this Palin c*nt...who the fvck is she? What makes her so special? Fascist Fundamental Christian Freak.

**raycarey** · 13-06-2009, 09:42 AM

everyone know that letterman was referring to palin's 18 year old daughter......the pot-head who got knocked up--- and is now touring the country on an abstinence tour (apparently with a straight face).

this is just palin being opportunistic.

Thread: Palin makes Obama terrorist claim

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions