gadgetlady

Jack posted some videos which you didn't watch but criticized as being diversionary tactics. You stated that diversionary tactics are lies and misrepresentations meant to divert people away from honest issues. I stated that the videos weren't a diversionary tactic, had good information, and weren't lies and misrepresentations -- but you wouldn't know that because you didn't watch them. I think I read both posts quite well.

Here's the direct quote, on September 11, 2001 (the date is significant as well): ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' (see No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - New York Times for reference) I did get it right.

He speaks very much to honest issues. I have no doubt that you will disagree with his position on those issues, but his background and his arguments are very insightful (regardless of whether you agree with him or not). I don't see how you can call this a "diversion" (meaning, in your words, lies or misrepresentations) when you didn't even listen to it.

You should listen. Sometimes it helps to get another POV.

ROFLOL! :tongue2:

Jack, that was awesome. Thanks for posting it. I'd like to shake that man's hand. BJean, did you listen? Because if you did, you would know it's not "those guys" -- it was one guy in the 3 separate videos.

On what? LOL!

Couldn't agree with you more.

People resort to name-calling when a logical discourse on the issues escapes them.

The 14th Amendment was a response to a particularly abhorrent Supreme Court decision on a Constitutional issue: Dred Scott. Yes, the Supreme Court does get things wrong (unless you agree with the Dred Scott decision?). I also find it interesting that the 14th Amendment, which established that no, one person cannot own another (a slave), was then subsequently illegitimately used to establish that one person CAN own another (a mother owning her baby).

Oh, yeah, and then there was the part about Obama saying he barely knew Ayres. Except for these curious details: Barack Obama’s review of William Ayers' book and Michelle Malkin

This is a great read: Michael McBride : Why costco is Better than Obama - Townhall.com I love Costco. It’s not the giganto-normus TVs that greet you as you enter. Not the great deal you get on the bazillion pack of AA batteries. Not the discount you receive for buying a super tanker load of super-absorbent, quilted toilet paper. None of those. I love Costco for the samples. It is a great marketing strategy, because before you can expect someone to make a year long commitment to consuming eight gallons of multi-vegetable juice extract, they may want to sample a little swig of it; just to make sure that if nothing else, it will go well with vodka on a Saturday morning. chicken tenders. Cookies. Cereal. Sausage. Cinnamon rolls. Trail mix. And Dino-nuggets have all been sampled by this household. Some of those sampled items made it home and were thoroughly enjoyed. Yet others, like two gallons of cilantro infused, bohemian mango chutney, should have gotten a bit more scrutiny before they were passed across the check-out scanner. The worst however was the green ketchup. The green ketchup should have received a lot more vetting before buying. No amount of sampling could make it taste like the usual red ketchup. The monster truck quantities of the green were soon supplanted by the more familiar, and better tasting red ketchup. Lesson learned. What I hate about the Chi-town Demo-media machine is that there is no sampling. Obama has no meaningful record in Chicago. No record in the State of Illinois legislature. He has only an endless litany of “present” votes in the US Senate, followed shortly thereafter by a two year long anonymous run for the most powerful political job on the planet. What a resume. It defines him about as well as a generic beer could define a well brewed IPA. This will be of no surprise to those in Chicago. They are used to being told who to vote for and when. In fact they are usually handsomely rewarded for kneeling to the long standing Chi-town machine. The dead have long ago given up protesting the practice. Even they eventually cave in to the desires of the Chicago machine. Yes they relented long ago, they look forward to election season; it makes them feel alive again, and again, and again. I have long ago given up on the MSM, but what is surprising to me, is that there doesn’t appear to be any independent life in any of their reporters. Ayers, the wasted Annenberg dollars, Reverend Wright, and Father What-his-name, all offer an opportunity for a truly independent journalist to become the Woodward of his/her time. They each offer an opportunity to break ranks with the media mogul news machines, to cut a name for themselves. To sell the real news, not just the package that is sent to them by the liberal image machine. The fact that none of these stories gained a scintilla of air/press is a malfeasance of fiduciary responsibility matched only by the blind ineptness on Wall Street. But alas, no, they shill on for the Dems through their intentional ineptitude and personal biases. What gets me about all this is that we are left with no sample. We are being asked to buy an unmarked, nine cubic foot box of generic corn flakes and there is nothing to go on. Zip. Unless you call 150 plus days of attendance in the US Senate and 160 plus “present” votes a “record.” That is until Joe Plumber. In a moment when Obama, his team, and the MSM were not in total control of the situation, a plumber pulled back the wrapping on the box and exposed the true Obama vision for this country. No amount of spin control. No amount of punditry on the MSM Sunday “news” shows can hide the naked truth. From Obama himself, “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” From Webster, “state socialism: an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class” (emphasis mine). Call me silly, but I want more than a ramekin in the aisle before buying four years of a blank slate with a socialist agenda. Where is Toto when needed? It is time to pull the curtain back a little further, we need to figure out who the man behind the curtain is before those of us “taxpayers” who actually pay income tax are all tithing fifty percent to the state.

Obama's stance on issues is very clear. He believes in raising taxes, adding and funding government programs through the roof, and "redistributing the wealth." I've looked at his position on a number of issues and I don't think there's one thing I agree with him -- or Ayres -- on.

Furthermore, Ayres' position on issues currently is predominantly radical Marxist. Based on the money trail, book endorsements and even shared offices, I have to conclude that Obama holds the same views.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME! The man has never publicly repented; instead, he has recently said HE WISHED HE HAD DONE MORE! I'm taking the man at his word. Since you seem to like him so much, why aren't you?

Talk about racism, or reverse-racism as it were: In case you missed this week's issue of the Army Times, here are the results of their poll of military personnel re the election (in %). McCain Obama Overall 68 23 Army 68 23 Navy 69 24 Air Force 67 24 Marines 75 18 Retirees 72 20 White Non-Hispanic 76 17 Hispanic 63 27 Black/African-American 12 79 Enlisted 67 24 Officers 70 22

Ayres has not changed his ways. That's the pivotal issue here. As to the AP / Times / reporting issue you addressed, it appears you're now changing your argument? The issue is no longer whether Obama should have or did forgive him, but now it's that Obama's not as close with him as some reports have indicated? Interesting. I don't think you launch your bid for the highest political position in the free world from the living room of someone you don't know well. There are plenty of other "associations" as well -- follow the money.

Just to be clear, I believe we are using the same definition of "Christ-like". My use of the term "Christ-like" was not meant to imply that Obama believes himself to be Christ, but it was the same definition you use above -- trying to be as much like Christ as possible by living out the Christian faith as much as possible. On the matter of Obama's associations, I know I will never convince you, but I remain unconvinced that you wouldn't be on the other side of this issue if McCain were hanging out with an unrepentant, former member of the KKK. Feel free to correct me if this is not the case, and if you truly wouldn't care if McCain had such associations. I certainly would.

Absolutely not. Nor am I spotless -- not by a long shot. But certainly there is somewhere you would draw the line as to who you "hang out" with? Repentance and heart-attitude having something to do with that line? Would you hang out with serial killers because, after all, everyone's a sinner? Would you hang out with racists because, after all, everyone's a sinner?

I think you're missing my point. My point was that you were calling Obama Christ-like for forgiving Ayres when 1) Ayres is unrepentant and doesn't believe what he did was wrong, and 2) Obama isn't in a position to forgive Ayres (because he's not Christ and Ayres didn't wrong him but rather the people he perpetrated terrorist acts against), yet in the very next post you're calling Jesse Jackson out on his actions (which, presumably, if you believe what you've said about Obama and Ayres above, you should be equally Christ-like to forgive). Actions speak to a man's character. Who we call a friend speaks to our judgment about whether those actions are significant or not. If someone undertook sinful and/or illegal acts and doesn't see them as sinful and/or wrong, but rather praises them, and we befriend that person and/or consider them a mentor, it speaks to the position of our heart as well.

ROFLOL! What, are you not capable of FORGIVING the man???? After all, that's what Jesus would do!!! Oh, wait. Do actions now mean something?

William Ayres HAS STATED that he SUPPORTS and AFFIRMS what he did and HE WISHES HE HAD DONE MORE! So yes, they are past sins, but yes, they are also sins that he doesn't believe were wrong. I would love to speak with any of them about my "logical diduction [sic]" on this matter. Jesus' platform has nothing to do with politics. It is not Obama's position to "forgive" Ayres his (unrepentant) sin, because Obama is not his Savior. He certainly has a right to befriend anyone he wants, and forgive him whatever he wants, even if that person hasn't asked for forgiveness or hasn't indicated that he believes he has done anything wrong. But to equate Jesus' position towards the woman about to be stoned with Obama's friendship with Ayres is ludicrous beyond belief. Jesus was very clear about His Kingdom and about the Kingdom of Darkness; He talked about it all the time. Here's what He and His Disciples said about unrepentant sinners in regard to church affairs (Jesus didn't speak to political action, which is, really, the crux of my point -- but nevertheless): Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 1 Cor 5:13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." 2 Thess 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. Once again, if you're going to go the Biblical route, I must refer you back to 1 Cor 15:33 Bad company corrupts good character. I don't see how anyone can deny that a man who bombed buildings and partook in other terrorist activities -- and has recently stated that he wished he had gone further -- is anything other than "bad company."

Thereby violating the baby of life (and liberty and property as well). One of the Supreme Court justices at the time penned that if the personhood of the fetus could be established, abortion would not just have to be presented back to the states, but would have to be made federally ILLEGAL precisely for this reason. I have been unable to find the reference, but I will keep looking. Actually, she wasn't raped. It was consensual sex with her boyfriend. And Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, guaranteed abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. When Norma was first "found" by the pro-abortion movement, they gleefully paraded her up on stage and handed her the microphone. They then watched in horror as she said, "All I want to do is find my baby." You see, she placed her baby for adoption after birth (she didn't have an abortion) -- in fact, making Roe v. Wade legally moot before the court in question. There are so many legal problems with Roe it's ridiculous. Even liberals like Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have problems with Roe as a legal decision.

http://www.lapbandtalk.com/f7/poll-democrat-republican-23923/index18.html#post1032604 -- also well worth reading.

:biggrin: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well said.