All of you know about Barack Obama’s extensive ties to William (Bill) Ayers, for over two decades — probably longer since the two lived about a block apart in New York City while Obama was at Columbia University (he graduated in 1983).

Besides their long political and social ties in Chicago — Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn hosted Obama’s first political fundraiser — it is of the highest importance that more people learn that it was Bill Ayers who hired Barack Obama as chairman of the $50-million Chicago Annenberg Project, which Ayers designed as a “real life” vehicle of his radical views of public education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAa4Jrl7wp0

They even call those involved "The Keating 5".  That sounds like a terrorist group to me.  The Weather Underground does not sound so bad by comparison.  They invented doppler radar.  That's a proven scientific fact.

And the comparison between the two is very far reaching to say the least.
The name "Keating 5" was given to them by the media.

The ultra militant conservative..

But I guess you want to deflect attention from the real story, which is Troopergate....

...that fucking over people's money is a bit more damaging than nonfatal bombings.  I tend to agree.

and the Branch Davidians. It wasn't until Nixon took a tough approach to North Vietnam did they capitulate to peace negotiations. What was the ATF doing in WACO fighting against innocent children? Thank you for reminding me why I don't want a Democrat in office.

Obama will hire another Janet Reno as Attorney General and will put innocent Americans behind bars and let terrorists run free because we denied them their constitutional rights. UGH!

Troopergate is a farce. A State appointee is "at will position" or in other words can be terminated for no reason at all.

Obama because of his association with a known domestic terrorist could not even qualify for a Secret Service detail.

You keep hope alive

The Investigator-in-Charge for the Keating case even suggested to the committe in charge of the investigation to have McCain excused as he had nothing to do with the case, but no, no, no....

The DIMoCRAPS wanted to have a republican in there to make it bi-partisan. It can't be just the DIMoCRAPS...so let's put McCain in there.

Besides, McCain was exonerated on this case(for the DIMoCRAPS who don't know). LOL.

So he won't leave a paper-trail. Obama is the manchurian candidate. This economy crisis was planned a long time ago by the DIMoCRAPS. Why do you think the DIMoCRAPS covered up the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis? Why do you think the DIMoCRAPS didn't want to regulate Fannie and Freddie 3 years ago? The DIMoCRAPS wanted the housing crisis to fail this election year, so they can get the election.

Do you really want a one-party government???? Do you really want a Junior Senator who have tons of radical, terrorist, and corrupt ties to be the next POTUS to face this current crisis????

I DON'T THINK SO!

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 10:15:46 AM

You need to come up with some better adhesives ... 'cause the shit you're using don't stick






-- Modified on 10/11/2008 10:29:14 AM

Charles Keating stole a lot of money and impoverished many people doing it.  

Ayers was more like a strategic bomber. He boasted that his bombing of the Pentagon didn't hurt anybody, but shut down the bombing of Hanoi for five days.

Even you might be impressed at who he puts in office. I don't think he'll go for his old Chicago buddies, and he definitely won't have rules like: We need a woman Attorney General, and no one else need apply.

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 7:07:15 PM

It was McCain who was held prisoner for years and tortured, and now his torturer supports him for President.

Now, on topic, you're crazy, you've lost a dozen marbles. Your head is bent with conspiracy theories, and you're suffering a paranoid psychosis. Planned a long time ago by Democrats? Dems have never had that kind of power.

But I know better than to argue with a psychotic mind. This is the last thing that I'll write to you.  

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 6:26:21 PM

as well as he treats his friends....

Never killed anyone …. Hummm…. So I guess his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, who died ina bomb-making accident in 1970 and Terry Robbins, his roommate who also died while making a bomb were just well, it was just time “for them to go….”

I’m truly sorry, much as we have no patience for the likes of Nazi’s I have no patience for anarchists who actually make bombs and destroy people, property and gain through intimidation.  Ayers is NOT a good dude.  And to this day, he boasts that he did not do enough... sorry - but to have no remorse?  man that is cold considering that is girlfriend and his best friend are DEAD!

ANYONE, repeat ANYONE, Republican, Democrat, man, woman that knowingly shares oxygen in the same room with the likes of Ayers is deserving of absolutely ZERO respect.

If the closest connection I had with him was that he lived in my neighborhood, I would MOVE.

GUILT by association defended successfully
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0teLVZvsUs



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama%20spokesman%20puts%20Hannity%20in%20his%20place&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw


-- Modified on 10/11/2008 2:17:26 PM

why doesn't McSame talk about Obama's association with Warren Buffet?

Bombs are worse than stealing money. Bombs can kill people.

I never really understood it until I saw my first autopsy photo. The victim was a security guard nicknamed "Lucky."  He was naked on an aluminum table with holes in him and a big slash down his chest.  He was really dead.

And then I have seen photos of bodies burned and blown apart by bombs.

Take my money. Don't plant a bomb in my house when I or my children are home.

Maybe you can argue that taking money is like planting bombs. But when you have seen the bodies, you decide bombs are worse.

No, you wouldn't move. Hatred isn't that accommodating. You'd harass him till HE moved. You'd do that with a Sex Offender.

So, exactly what did he do that offends you THAT much. Was it the bombings themselves? Or the "support" of North Vietnam?

He has a couple blogs, you know. Here's what he said of his bombing. He said he had many regrets.

". . . I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that
while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn't do enough to stop the war."

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 7:07:35 PM

...I've seen (live in person) people dying from perfectly treatable diseases because they were too broke to get proper medical treatment.  I've seen what a diet of cheap, but sodium-laden packaged food can do to you because you can't afford to buy fresh, healthy food.  I've seen people work themselves to death in their old age because they can't afford to retire..shall I continue?  Because this is what happens when people lose their savings.  White collar crime is deadly.  More indirect yes - but still deadly.  

-- Modified on 10/11/2008 7:51:28 PM

...that quote cleared up a lot of ambiguity about what he did or didn't say about the bombings.  Contextually, it makes more sense that what the JM campaign and its mindless followers have been spouting.  

I learned something.  Thanks.

I just love how some of you ao easily think that you can predict what others would do. You have no clue.

I missed going into the military during Vietnam by just one year (due to my age). I had several friends that were slightly older serve, some were wounded or died. So yes, there's emotion attached, but I have no hatred for him, nor Jane Fonda. I'd classify it as contempt.

Ayers' regets? He has no regret about his bombings. His regrets are about not doing more.

McCain has close ties to George W Bush, who's done 10,000 times more damage to the US than any terrorist ever has.

First, I don't believe most people who are poor die because of "sodium-packaged" food.  

The reason people pick that type of food is ignorance, not finance.  I live in a zip code that has a substantially higher percent below the average income level than to others.  The options for fresh food at a reasonable price are many and convenient.  Six blocks away from me is Jon's, a chain of large grocery stores that is known for it's cheap prices.  The range of fresh vegatables and other stuff is astounding.

There are three low cost Eastern European delis nearby (walking distance) that have produce and other stuff at a very reasonable rate.

Indeed, packaged foods are often more expensive.  The reason people buy them is not because they are cheaper.  It costs less to buy a fresh chicken, toss some herbs on it, broil it 15 minutes, and have an ear of fresh corn or a baked potato, than it costs to buy the frozen, pre-cooked chicken dinner.

It is not a lack of money.  (History - the left attributes everything to money.  I am NOT NOT NOT saying you are a Marxist, but this is the Marxist view of the world.)

Second, I don't believe that the type of person who was invested with Keating really lost everything and had to work themselves to death, like they did in Dickens's England.  

The odds are that the vast majority had other investments. First, accounts were still insured to 100,000 PER ACCOUNT.  No one lost everything, They were left with 100K.  The only people who lost everything except that 100K were people who had everything they owned in one account.

If they had $100,000 in one account and another $100K in a joint account with his or her spouse, they lost nothing. Both were fully insured. If they had 100K in a personal account, and 100K in a retirement account, like an IRA, they lost nothing.

If they had 100K in one account, a house - people who had that much money then probably had a house, and stocks they did't lose anything.  If they were conservative and didn't buy stocks but had government bonds as well, they didn't lose those.

The vast majority of people who had 100K to start with were not in one investment, but were diversified.

Third, medical.  You assume that all these people were broke and didn't have insurance or other medical resources.  The vast majority of people who had over 100K in one account did have other means.

Finally, indirect is very different. I can't control the indirect consequences.  That is why the concept of accident exists.  That is why the worst form of murder is intentional and premeditated. Removing legalese, it means you really wanted to kill.

Bombs are per se premeditated.  They are very calculated.  You are placing an object that is extremely likely to kill and that inference this is your desire is overwhelming.  ON TOP OF THAT, it is not like a gun that you fire and can't do anything about, even if you regret it.  With a bomb you plant it and leave, knowing it is there, knowing a victim is approaching, knowing it will go off and may kill or maim.  And you sit there waiting for it to kill. And you don't do anything because even when you think about it, this is what you want - bodies broken and splattered. Children without a father.  Mothers with a son killed.

Direct blood and misery.

If I break into someone's house and steal his computer, he may not get his e-mail and could lose money. Desponent he kills himself.

My act of residential burglary is a world away from someone who plants a bomb with nails in it that pierce someone's brain or blinds them or leaves them a vegatable.  

THE FINAL IRONY - the type of bomb he was building was a crude anti-personel bomb that sent shrapnel in all directions.  This is the type of bomb that revolted the anti-war movement in the 60's. It was considered to be a war crime to use one.  

But for Ayers to use one is kind of like stealing someone's money.

This is why the right believes the left has lost its "moral compass," when you can't see the difference between blowing people to smithereens - splattering blood and brains on the walls, and theft of money.

Your counter-argument is based heavily on incorrect information.  It being so lengthy, I thought you would have been more familiar with Keating Five and the S&L crisis....Are you sure you're an attorney????  Fuck.  How many cases have you lost?  I'm not going to write an essay like you did, I'll just sum it up a bit:

I can say with much certainty that people often buy packaged, unhealthy food because it is in fact considerably cheaper than fresh.  It doesn't matter how many options are available in your particular ZIP code...it's still more expensive.  I'm very familiar with individuals who make their selection based on these prices and their financial limitations.  It isn't just ignorance.  It's not having a choice in that regard, and it leads to all sorts of medical problems.  You're also wrong about individuals with no money having health insurance.  Insurance is generally the first thing to go when people have to cut back because of some drastic financial change in their lives - and when they get sick, they're pretty much fucked.  I do quite a bit of volunteering as a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER so I'm intimately familiar with what people go through when they have no money.  

You're also wrong about the FDIC insuring the accounts of the individuals who lost money in the Keating Five Scandal.  Lincoln account holders were convinced to switch from FDIC insured certificates of deposit to American Continental (parent company of Lincoln  S&L) bond certificates.  They weren't informed of the risks, they just had it shoved down their throats as they best way to get a larger return on their money (sounds eerily familiar to the way ARMS were marketed). When AC when bankrupt, these people were left with the worthless bonds they'd purchased.  Yes, they lost it all.  And losing it all is dangerous - even fatal.  More fatal than a bomb that explodes in an empty building, causing a few thousand in property damage.  

-- Modified on 10/12/2008 9:23:41 AM

Been a long time and memory faded. I was wrong that it was insured.  But I would be flabergasted if most people were not diversified at all.  I don't know where to find the info on how many people lost what percent of money, but the odds are that it was a small amount that lost all.  Again, this is just based on how 95% of people invest.  

To have the consequences you are describing, you have to be talking about people who lost it all and were too old to start again.  Young people who lost a huge amount were obviously making money at the time.  They may have lost their savings, which is sad, but there would be no reason why they would have lost their jobs. Middle age people would be in the same boat.  If they had that amount to invest, they were not out on the street, hungry, and without health care the next day.  (Even most old people would have Medicaid.) Very few were in abject poverty from what happened, and abject poverty is what is required for the consequences you are talking about.

I used my zip code to show that in lower income areas it is possible to eat cheaply.  Are you telling me that your sodium packed packaged foods are cheaper than fresh produce?  Are you telling me that people who eat Freetos can't afford apples?  I am sorry, but I don't believe it. But I have to go to the  store later and will check it out.  If the packaged is cheaper, I will appologize again tomorrow.

On a personal note: Yes,I am an attorney.  And, yes, you are right;  I lose the vast majority of cases.  The area that I specialize in happens to be the last area of hope.  Overall, people who do the type of work that I do lose about 95% of their cases.  My average is in that range, although I never calcualated exactly where I stand.  I have done pretty well with six cases in the state supreme court.   (I don't want to post the specific area, but if you have questions about the rather unusual area of law, you can PM me.)

Finally, you don't know if a building is empty when you plant a bomb.  If people don't die you are lucky. In fact, the Weathermen did not just target empty buildings, but fire bombed at least one house where there were people sleeping.

I don't know if Ayers was personally involved in that or not, but it doesn't matter.  If he wasn't involved, to know your group did that and remain a part of it really shows your true colors.

The difference between a person who plants bombs and does not kill anyone and one who does the same act but does kill is a matter of plain old dumb luck.

The moral act is the same. Placing an explosive where people are walking by or what ever.  The intent is the same, to blow up the target regardless of the danger to human life.

The only difference is the pure fortuity of whether someone happened to be there or not.

The analogy is someone who fires a gun at a crowd of people, or even into the air on New Year's.  He may miss everyone. He may hit someone's leg. He may hit someone's head.  The law will punish partly based on the result.  The morality of the act itself is independent of the consequences.

He had the intent required to murder. He did the act necessary to murder.  He got lucky.  And the worst thing about it IS HE STILL DOESN'T CARE.  No regrets. Wished he had done more. Maybe if he had done more, his luck would have run out.