philbymon wrote:
I don't place any more emphasis on Obama's "association" with Ayers or take it any more seriously than Palin's "association" with Vogler
Well, there is no association to Vogler apparently. It seems that he was dead, before Palin's husband joined that party. I think it is Palin's husband and not Palin who was a member of that party though.
I need to check into this more to verify the details I have read about so far. I heard something about this awhile back, but almost simultaneously, saw a headline that the original source for this story had retracted and apologized. I guess I thought it was a dead issue.
UPDATE: Just checked. Well, I don't consider it a dead issue now that I have looked into it.
Thanks for the heads-up Steve!Well, it is not as bad as some have made it out to be, but it is not benign either, at least to me. I think it is a serious judgment issue, and it concerns me.
NOT SO BAD:Palin's husband was a member, not Palin herself.
Palin did make a "welcome video" for that party's convention, where she said that "competition is good" even "competition between parties" and wished for them an inspiring and successful convention. Not earth shattering considering that is basically part of her job.
Yes, this party advocates "bringing to a vote" the issue of Alaskan secession, but this is hardly comparable to the terrorist Bill Ayers. It may be extreme to wish for secession, but it is not illegal. This goes to the heart of how far "state's rights" should go. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. And none of the arguments or previous court cases involving secession, whether for or against, are airtight. For example, it has been argued that the union was meant to be "indestructible, just as states are meant to be indestructible" but this falls short when you consider that Massachusetts divided itself into what we now call Maine and Massachusetts and similarly Virginia became Virginia and West Virginia. If a state separates itself into pieces, hasn't that original state, in effect, been "destroyed" with two new states taking it's place?
Additionally, there was discussion by some democratic figures in 2004 suggesting the idea that maybe the blue states should secede en masse, effectively dividing the country in two. They were angered at Bush's re-election. Which brings up the point, that it is usually anger and frustration over politics and policies of the federal government that illicit such talk, whether serious or joking. And along those lines, as one commentator noted, "movements of secession are rarely serious, and instead are meant to convey how serious certain issues are to the relevant state. So, it is almost a media ploy for attention to their issues.
NOT SO GOOD:Ok, so it wasn't Palin herself, so what?
I would probably divorce my wife if she joined such a movement. Not even joking.
I don't see secession as "revolutionary" or following in the tradition of the forefather's by asserting independence or just shaking government up in general. Secession movements are helping sew the seeds of disunity and destructiveness in our country, it does not help our country. It is almost unimaginable that the Supreme Court would even "consider" reviewing a case involving secession, let alone be moved to "rule" on such an issue. This just isn't going to happen, so why stir sh*t up, rather than work things out, with your fellow citizens?
I don't care that she wasn't involved directly.
Why not take a stand for the preservation of our union, rather than playing with it's potential division?
Stupid.
Very poor judgment.
philbymon wrote:
You need to find out about Obama's supposed drive for the "redistribution of wealth," Craig. That has been explained well enough to us all that I needn't repeat it other than to say that it was a sentence taken out of context.
Explained well enough to US ALL? By who? Our dear leader Obama? He explained it to "us all" very well did he? OMG that is so obsequious!
Let's just call Obama "Big Brother" (1984) and be done with it?
Hey, the telescreen is coming on! Let's just buy what they feed us, cause remember... "Big Brother is watching you!"
Are you satisfied with Bush's explanation of why we went into Iraq? Why not? He personally "explained it to us all" didn't he? Apparently that settles it for you, right?
philbymon wrote:
Obama is no more a communist than McCain.
Did I call Barack a communist? He is a believer in socialism. Yes, they are both Marxist based ideologies, and Marx believed socialism to be a transitional state between Capitalism and Communism. Like a political gateway drug. LOL
But they are not the same thing.
What they do share, is the belief that Capitalism is an unfair system, which allows for wealth to be unequally divided, so to correct this, socialists believe in, well gee...
"The redistribution of wealth" (sound familiar?) so that it is more evenly distributed among the populace.
philbymon wrote:
your comparison between Ayers & Hitler is laughable, & designed to outrage us all, but it just doesn't hold water
There's nothing laughable about it. I am not saying that Ayers is in Hitler's league, but this is a matter of degrees. These are both whacko extremists, unsavory characters, who have broad designs on the world, and both engaged in indefensible acts of terrorism, justified through their extreme political views.
Ok, Hitler bothers you. Of course he does. So should Ayers. Seeing him step on the flag alone, is enough to get my blood boiling. F*ck him and f*ck anyone else who lacks the heart for this country to such a degree, that seeing someone desecrate our nation's flag doesn't stir up strong feelings within them.
It is one thing to support someone's right to demean their own country and it's ideals. It is another thing altogether to respect such an act, whether directly, or indirectly through silence, or suggesting it is meaningless.
philbymon wrote:& I fail to see how Ayers' views are any more dangerous than Vogle's.
Maybe because Vogler didn't engage in terrorist acts, unlike Ayers, who personally set off bombs in a police headquarters, the Pentagon and the Capital building among others. And because Ayers believes that Capitalism should be destroyed and replaced with communism?
philbymon wrote:
Did Obama give Ayers a "shout out" to his cause, or tell him to "keep up the good work,"like Ms Palin did?
Got me there Phil, you brilliant son of a gun!
A video of Palin welcoming "competition in politics" and wishing them well, on their convention, is certainly a far greater "shout out" than say, having your first political fundraiser in a TERRORISTS OWN LIVING ROOM, and then writing an endorsement for said-terrorist's book, and working closely with said-terrorist as they doled out 100 Million dollars in Chicago to the liberal causes they both endorsed, and consulting with said-terrorist on policy issues, serving with said-terrorist on numerous boards, accepting campaign donations from said-terrorist.
Thanks for setting me straight Phil!
You really have this one in perspective.
Gee, I see that I only listed 6 distinct and close personal ties between Obama and Ayers, and for Palin and Vogler you listed, umm...well technically "0" since Vogel was dead when Palin sent that video to AIP's convention opening, but it "IS" the party he founded, right? So, we'll give you a "1".
6 to 1
Thanks for showing me the light Phil, although the math still doesn't quite add up for me, I trust you. That must be one heavy ass video to offset the decade long relationship (13 years minimum actually) and MANY numerous examples of Obama and Ayers continued relationship.
Postage must have been ridiculously expensive for all that weight!
Gawd your smart!