Why should I vote for John McCain?

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

So McCain has almost reached the average lifespan and you want him to have the most important job in the country?

Theokhoth

Yes, because he demonstrates absolutely no physical or mental sign that he is incapable of leading the nation. All this "McCain is old" crap is nothing more than unfounded ageism. It's the same as bashing Obama for his skin color or Hillary for her gender.

It's not the same. Race and gender won't affect your ability to do you job. Age more than likely will.

And if it were the case with McCain, he would have demonstrated long before now signs that his age is catching up to him during his time in the Senate, or on his campaign.

He has not. Therefore, this speculation is unfounded and bigoted.

Yeah...not voting for a 73 year old is "bigoted"....

Prove it

-Austin-

That he has ties to Bill Aires?

Yeah...not voting for a 73 year old is "bigoted"....

-Austin-

Voting for a 73-year-old because he's a 73-year-old is bigoted. It is ageism, nothing more.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"]

What the heck happened to the Optimism of America? That it doesn't matter who you are, or where you came from, but if you want it enough and work hard enough, you can achieve what you want?

My dad was born into poverty. He told me about having to get clothes from the Salvation Army. In life he gained skills and knowledge while working, eventually left his company, opened a business and works his butt off sometimes going without sleep to gain success. Now he's paying for 2 kids to go to college (including my apartment), building a huge cabin in the Catskills, drives a beautiful car and loves what he does. He said he wouldn't have it any other way. That his greatest joy is working and seeing me succeed because of hard work.

And you want to increase his taxes? He finally achieves a level of comfort and security, and you want to start taking that a way? My dads not a greedy man. He pays his employees fairly and make sure all of them are taken care of. AND YOU WANT TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE LIKE HIM? How is that moral? How is that right? HOW DARE YOU!

Then a buddy of mine who is a composer, who could barely pay for food. He worked his butt off and is now one of the top composers in the industry. Your gonna punish his hard work by increasing his taxes?

Not to mention both McCain and Obama don't address a huge issue, and thats spending. Instead of saying "lets cut spending cause we're printing money out of thin air which weakens our dollar and our economy" you have a guy like Obama saying "I'm gonna increase taxes and spend even more than George Bush did (who spent like a mad man)."

InterpolWilco

Your father and friend are wonderful success stories. Is it moral? Is it right? How should I know. Cutting taxes for the rich wouldn't help, much like putting a lot of extra tax on the rich wouldn't help.

This spending situation is a debacle. On one hand, if we can minimize spending in Iraq, that would be great.Once out of there, we could slash at least $150 billion off our defense budget and allocate it to where the "extra tax" would have gone to, in a more efficient and reasonable way. Such as education, which is floundering.

Have you seen how much this country spends on Education already?

Dumping money into a system that isn't working isn't going to save it.

Maybe dumping money wouldn't work, but using that education money to develop extra-curricular activities in lower-class neighbourhoods, raise the salaries of teachers which make jack-crap in so many areas in the country, fund modern teaching materials/books to replace severely outdated textbooks, etc. Doubling the education budget would set seeds in place for the future.

What's your suggestion on the education system?

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Yeah...not voting for a 73 year old is "bigoted"....

Theokhoth

Voting for a 73-year-old because he's a 73-year-old is bigoted. It is ageism, nothing more.

Ageism isn't even a real thing. Your ability to do you job naturally decreases with old age.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Yeah...not voting for a 73 year old is "bigoted"....

-Austin-

Voting for a 73-year-old because he's a 73-year-old is bigoted. It is ageism, nothing more.

Ageism isn't even a real thing. Your ability to do you job naturally decreases with old age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

Your second comment is an example of ageism. Plenty of older people work, many of them harder than you ever will.

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"]

What the heck happened to the Optimism of America? That it doesn't matter who you are, or where you came from, but if you want it enough and work hard enough, you can achieve what you want?

My dad was born into poverty. He told me about having to get clothes from the Salvation Army. In life he gained skills and knowledge while working, eventually left his company, opened a business and works his butt off sometimes going without sleep to gain success. Now he's paying for 2 kids to go to college (including my apartment), building a huge cabin in the Catskills, drives a beautiful car and loves what he does. He said he wouldn't have it any other way. That his greatest joy is working and seeing me succeed because of hard work.

And you want to increase his taxes? He finally achieves a level of comfort and security, and you want to start taking that a way? My dads not a greedy man. He pays his employees fairly and make sure all of them are taken care of. AND YOU WANT TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE LIKE HIM? How is that moral? How is that right? HOW DARE YOU!

Then a buddy of mine who is a composer, who could barely pay for food. He worked his butt off and is now one of the top composers in the industry. Your gonna punish his hard work by increasing his taxes?

Not to mention both McCain and Obama don't address a huge issue, and thats spending. Instead of saying "lets cut spending cause we're printing money out of thin air which weakens our dollar and our economy" you have a guy like Obama saying "I'm gonna increase taxes and spend even more than George Bush did (who spent like a mad man)."

Lockedge

Your father and friend are wonderful success stories. Is it moral? Is it right? How should I know. Cutting taxes for the rich wouldn't help, much like putting a lot of extra tax on the rich wouldn't help.

This spending situation is a debacle. On one hand, if we can minimize spending in Iraq, that would be great.Once out of there, we could slash at least $150 billion off our defense budget and allocate it to where the "extra tax" would have gone to, in a more efficient and reasonable way. Such as education, which is floundering.

Have you seen how much this country spends on Education already?

Dumping money into a system that isn't working isn't going to save it.

Maybe dumping money wouldn't work, but using that education money to develop extra-curricular activities in lower-class neighbourhoods, raise the salaries of teachers which make jack-crap in so many areas in the country, fund modern teaching materials/books to replace severely outdated textbooks, etc. Doubling the education budget would set seeds in place for the future.

What's your suggestion on the education system?

Speaking of dumping, we need to fix the problems we have with free trade and over sea jobs.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Yeah...not voting for a 73 year old is "bigoted"....

Theokhoth

Voting for a 73-year-old because he's a 73-year-old is bigoted. It is ageism, nothing more.

Ageism isn't even a real thing. Your ability to do you job naturally decreases with old age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

Your second comment is an example of ageism. Plenty of older people work, many of them harder than you ever will.

Working hard =/= Doing you job well

Working hard =/= Doing you job well

-Austin-

:roll: Whatever. Be a gerontophobe (and yes, it is a real thing), but I'd rather be reasonable about why I vote or don't vote for somebody.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Working hard =/= Doing you job well

Theokhoth

:roll: Whatever. Be a gerontophobe (and yes, it is a real thing), but I'd rather be reasonable about why I vote or don't vote for somebody.

I think I am being reasonable. The odds of dying increase signifigantly as you age. McCain has a very good chance of dying and in that event the VP would take over. The VP seems almost as bad as Bush.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="InterpolWilco"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"]

What the heck happened to the Optimism of America? That it doesn't matter who you are, or where you came from, but if you want it enough and work hard enough, you can achieve what you want?

My dad was born into poverty. He told me about having to get clothes from the Salvation Army. In life he gained skills and knowledge while working, eventually left his company, opened a business and works his butt off sometimes going without sleep to gain success. Now he's paying for 2 kids to go to college (including my apartment), building a huge cabin in the Catskills, drives a beautiful car and loves what he does. He said he wouldn't have it any other way. That his greatest joy is working and seeing me succeed because of hard work.

And you want to increase his taxes? He finally achieves a level of comfort and security, and you want to start taking that a way? My dads not a greedy man. He pays his employees fairly and make sure all of them are taken care of. AND YOU WANT TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM PEOPLE LIKE HIM? How is that moral? How is that right? HOW DARE YOU!

Then a buddy of mine who is a composer, who could barely pay for food. He worked his butt off and is now one of the top composers in the industry. Your gonna punish his hard work by increasing his taxes?

Not to mention both McCain and Obama don't address a huge issue, and thats spending. Instead of saying "lets cut spending cause we're printing money out of thin air which weakens our dollar and our economy" you have a guy like Obama saying "I'm gonna increase taxes and spend even more than George Bush did (who spent like a mad man)."

AgileNate

Your father and friend are wonderful success stories. Is it moral? Is it right? How should I know. Cutting taxes for the rich wouldn't help, much like putting a lot of extra tax on the rich wouldn't help.

This spending situation is a debacle. On one hand, if we can minimize spending in Iraq, that would be great.Once out of there, we could slash at least $150 billion off our defense budget and allocate it to where the "extra tax" would have gone to, in a more efficient and reasonable way. Such as education, which is floundering.

Have you seen how much this country spends on Education already?

Dumping money into a system that isn't working isn't going to save it.

Maybe dumping money wouldn't work, but using that education money to develop extra-curricular activities in lower-class neighbourhoods, raise the salaries of teachers which make jack-crap in so many areas in the country, fund modern teaching materials/books to replace severely outdated textbooks, etc. Doubling the education budget would set seeds in place for the future.

What's your suggestion on the education system?

Speaking of dumping, we need to fix the problems we have with free trade and over sea jobs.

If you're suggesting we stop companies from re-locating their labour forces for low-pay jobs...well, good luck. I'd like to see a country support all ranges of job salaries, but wit the minimum wage increasing and the economy slumping, you can't convince a company that it's financially feasible to have the same size workforce in the USA as they do in India or whatever, because the pay gap is too huge and profit margins are too comfortable.

The USA is a consumer society. We buy things. Other people make them and support them, it seems.Trades will always be in demand, but manufacturing jobs likely won't.

Also, free trade is crap. The US government ackowledged it as such when they stole millions of dollars from Canada by slapping tariffs on their softwood lumber for no reason other than they felt like it. The US government has broken so many NAFTA laws, and hasn't really had to pay up for any of them. I don't see why they'd want to get rid of a system where they can strangle other countries to submission.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

-Austin-

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

If you're suggesting we stop companies from re-locating their labour forces for low-pay jobs...well, good luck. I'd like to see a country support all ranges of job salaries, but wit the minimum wage increasing and the economy slumping, you can't convince a company that it's financially feasible to have the same size workforce in the USA as they do in India or whatever, because the pay gap is too huge and profit margins are too comfortable.

The USA is a consumer society. We buy things. Other people make them and support them, it seems.Trades will always be in demand, but manufacturing jobs likely won't.

Also, free trade is crap. The US government ackowledged it as such when they stole millions of dollars from Canada by slapping tariffs on their softwood lumber for no reason other than they felt like it. The US government has broken so many NAFTA laws, and hasn't really had to pay up for any of them. I don't see why they'd want to get rid of a system where they can strangle other countries to submission.

Lockedge

I find this to be a serious issue that isnt mentioned enough.

EDIT: got rid of past quotes

[QUOTE="kingyotoX"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"]UOTE="Rikusaki"][QUOTE="Scarker"]

[QUOTE="IMaBIOHAZARD"]nd, his tax plan will only have us forking over half of what Obama had in mind.-Austin-

Obama's tax plans are much better than McCain's.

UOTE]

Now that is what I'm talking about.

I don't get why consevatives are against this.

The rich can pay higher taxes, they ARE rich, right?

The middle cl@ss needs these tax cuts. NOT THE RICH.

Obamas cuts are not for the middle cl@ss The biggest cuts are for the porr, who barley pay any taxes already. Also taxing the wealthy is not a sound economic plan. Democrats always do it and it never works.

Terrible spelling.

Anyways, the reason the poor have the lowest taxes are becuase.....they are poor.

sorry for my poor spelling, i'm from russia....

The poor already pay hardly any money in taxes there is no reason for them to be lowered.

They can't afford to even turn their heat on in the winter. I think that's a pretty decent reason to decrease their taxation.

If they can't afford heat it's not becuase of taxation. Obviously I don't know every familys situation, but there are many "poor" people who are simply irresponsible with there money.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"]Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS.It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Trashface

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

I tried to look it up on Wikipedia under the Obama page but conveniently they make no mention of it but they mention Rev. Wright under it. I guess they don't want Bill Ayers name to be on his page because if you clicked on his name it would probably show up what he's done in his passed.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"]Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS.It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Nintendo_Ownes7

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

I tried to look it up on Wikipedia under the Obama page but conveniently they make no mention of it but they mention Rev. Wright under it. I guess they don't want Bill Ayers name to be on his page because if you clicked on his name it would probably show up what he's done in his passed.

The fact that Obama's followers are trying to get someone like him elected shows that all they run on is their hatred for the republican party and really don't care for the good of the country.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Trashface

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

If you're suggesting we stop companies from re-locating their labour forces for low-pay jobs...well, good luck. I'd like to see a country support all ranges of job salaries, but wit the minimum wage increasing and the economy slumping, you can't convince a company that it's financially feasible to have the same size workforce in the USA as they do in India or whatever, because the pay gap is too huge and profit margins are too comfortable.

The USA is a consumer society. We buy things. Other people make them and support them, it seems.Trades will always be in demand, but manufacturing jobs likely won't.

Also, free trade is crap. The US government ackowledged it as such when they stole millions of dollars from Canada by slapping tariffs on their softwood lumber for no reason other than they felt like it. The US government has broken so many NAFTA laws, and hasn't really had to pay up for any of them. I don't see why they'd want to get rid of a system where they can strangle other countries to submission.

AgileNate

I find this to be a serious issue that isnt mentioned enough.

EDIT: got rid of past quotes

It's true that our job market is in a dire situation compared to the past, and it should be focused on, but I can say with all confidence that it won't be. Not until it's too late, like always.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Lockedge

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

Vote republican if you want another world war.

McCain's VP is insane! Forget how bad McCain is his VP is several times worse than a child after eating a bowl of sugar given a machine gun. Palin will make abortion illegal, no sympathy for rape victims? Who is she? Not even McCain knows! CRAZY PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!

Theokhoth

Rape victims should put it up for adoption

No

Yes. Punishing a baby for the crimes of a rapist is marginally worse than the rape itself.

Thats the victims desicion. Not yours.

Thats the victims desicion. Not yours.

Rikusaki

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="hongkingkong"]

Vote republican if you want another world war.

McCain's VP is insane! Forget how bad McCain is his VP is several times worse than a child after eating a bowl of sugar given a machine gun. Palin will make abortion illegal, no sympathy for rape victims? Who is she? Not even McCain knows! CRAZY PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!

Rikusaki

Rape victims should put it up for adoption

No

Yes. Punishing a baby for the crimes of a rapist is marginally worse than the rape itself.

Thats the victims desicion. Not yours.

Also some people are probably wondering were is the cure for Cancer and other diseases. What if one of the Babies Murdered was the one that would've came up with the Cure? I know it is Hypothetical but IMO that is still Murder.

[QUOTE="IMaBIOHAZARD"]nd, his tax plan will only have us forking over half of what Obama had in mind.Scarker

Obama's tax plans are much better than McCain's.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Trashface

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.I'd be hard pressed to say the Weathermen as a whole are responsible for the robbery deaths. That just didn't make sense according to their political stance, so I'm thinking it was more the individuals. Those individuals all went to jail for what they did.

Terrorists have the primary goal to inspire fear. The Weathermen were speaking out, and then acting out against the government based on the federal stance on the Vietnam war.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Thats the victims desicion. Not yours.

famicommander

As a Conservative I am pro-choice to an extent.

Seriously, we have enough people as it is. Also, rape victims should have that choice, seeing as the child may carry the same persona as the rapist, as rapists are generally not right in the head and it has been traced back to traits one can easily inheret.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Lockedge

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.

Yep, terrorism. Are you trying to candy coat something to appease your conscience enough to support this person? Why would anyone want to elect someone who's mentor is Bill Ayers? There is NO justification.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Working hard =/= Doing you job well

-Austin-

:roll: Whatever. Be a gerontophobe (and yes, it is a real thing), but I'd rather be reasonable about why I vote or don't vote for somebody.

I think I am being reasonable. The odds of dying increase signifigantly as you age. McCain has a very good chance of dying and in that event the VP would take over. The VP seems almost as bad as Bush.

Trashface, your view is narrowminded. Maybe we thought things were pretty good under Clinton and want to have that again. And I know for a fact that you are blowing the Ayers thing out of proportion. So Obama knows a proffessor. McCain and Biden admit they are long time friends. Do you think they must have the same views because of it? Should I question Biden for calling an adulturer a friend?TBoogy

No,my view is purely common sense. It's not about "knowing a professor". They are friends of 20 years. Obama has called the hateful and radical Jeremiah Wright his MENTOR. Menotrs teach. The fact that you excuse these red flags make you seem very uncaring for the country and/ or gullible.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Trashface

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.I'd be hard pressed to say the Weathermen as a whole are responsible for the robbery deaths. That just didn't make sense according to their political stance, so I'm thinking it was more the individuals. Those individuals all went to jail for what they did.

Terrorists have the primary goal to inspire fear. The Weathermen were speaking out, and then acting out against the government based on the federal stance on the Vietnam war.

Yep, terrorism. Are you trying to candy coat something to appease your conscience enough to support this person? Why would anyone want to elect someone who's mentor is Bill Ayers? There is NO justification.

Are you attempting to dodge my logic, or are you maybe just a little tired, and are skimming?

Terrorism is to evoke fear. Like you conveniently cut out in the quote. The bank Robbery wasn't a Weathermen job, it was performed by members of multiple groups, and all those people went to jail. No one was intentionally killed by the Weathermen group. The Weathermen were making protests against certain actions of their government. They didn't want to scare people, they wanted to get the government to bring those people home, even if their goals were misguided and way too lofty for them to attain.

If my government stripped me of a bunch of rights, I'd protest and lobby and write to congress. If it accomplished nothing, I'd work to force my government to reconsider. If that included acts that damaged government property, then so be it. We're not ruled by a government, we're led. If they lead us the wrong way, we're given the right to re-direct them.

Am I a potential terrorist? Are you calling the police on me right now?

Ayers spoke out against the government's decision to stay over in Vietnam. Then he acted out in ways that didn't physically hurt anyone intentionally. He was willing to put his freedom on the line to try and get people from his country back home away from danger, and from a progressively meaningless war.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Lockedge

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.I'd be hard pressed to say the Weathermen as a whole are responsible for the robbery deaths. That just didn't make sense according to their political stance, so I'm thinking it was more the individuals. Those individuals all went to jail for what they did.

Terrorists have the primary goal to inspire fear. The Weathermen were speaking out, and then acting out against the government based on the federal stance on the Vietnam war.

Yep, terrorism. Are you trying to candy coat something to appease your conscience enough to support this person? Why would anyone want to elect someone who's mentor is Bill Ayers? There is NO justification.

Are you attempting to dodge my logic, or are you maybe just a little tired, and are skimming?

Terrorism is to evoke fear. Like you conveniently cut out in the quote. The bank Robbery wasn't a Weathermen job, it was performed by members of multiple groups, and all those people went to jail. No one was intentionally killed by the Weathermen group. The Weathermen were making protests against certain actions of their government. They didn't want to scare people, they wanted to get the government to bring those people home, even if their goals were misguided and way too lofty for them to attain.

If my government stripped me of a bunch of rights, I'd protest and lobby and write to congress. If it accomplished nothing, I'd work to force my government to reconsider. If that included acts that damaged government property, then so be it. We're not ruled by a government, we're led. If they lead us the wrong way, we're given the right to re-direct them.

Am I a potential terrorist? Are you calling the police on me right now?

Ayers spoke out against the government's decision to stay over in Vietnam. Then he acted out in ways that didn't physically hurt anyone intentionally. He was willing to put his freedom on the line to try and get people from his country back home away from danger, and from a progressively meaningless war.

That bank robbery included several members of the weathermen. Bombing is a violent means of force. It is illegal. You're actually endorsing violent destruction of property. I guess you're a potential terrorist if you approve of such things. I guess you've found a fitting candidate for your twisted views. I don't believe in forcing gay marriage upon individual states. By your logic, it's ok for me to go and bomb popular ceremony sites. I don't think it would be ok for me to do that, even if they were empty at the time. Your logic is twisted and wrong. No wonder you'd back such a dangerous candidate.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Trashface, your view is narrowminded. Maybe we thought things were pretty good under Clinton and want to have that again. And I know for a fact that you are blowing the Ayers thing out of proportion. So Obama knows a proffessor. McCain and Biden admit they are long time friends. Do you think they must have the same views because of it? Should I question Biden for calling an adulturer a friend?Trashface

No,my view is purely common sense. It's not about "knowing a professor". They are friends of 20 years. Obama has called the hateful and radical Jeremiah Wright his MENTOR. Menotrs teach. The fact that you excuse these red flags make you seem very uncaring for the country and/ or gullible.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

Trashface

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.I'd be hard pressed to say the Weathermen as a whole are responsible for the robbery deaths. That just didn't make sense according to their political stance, so I'm thinking it was more the individuals. Those individuals all went to jail for what they did.

Terrorists have the primary goal to inspire fear. The Weathermen were speaking out, and then acting out against the government based on the federal stance on the Vietnam war.

Yep, terrorism. Are you trying to candy coat something to appease your conscience enough to support this person? Why would anyone want to elect someone who's mentor is Bill Ayers? There is NO justification.

Are you attempting to dodge my logic, or are you maybe just a little tired, and are skimming?

Terrorism is to evoke fear. Like you conveniently cut out in the quote. The bank Robbery wasn't a Weathermen job, it was performed by members of multiple groups, and all those people went to jail. No one was intentionally killed by the Weathermen group. The Weathermen were making protests against certain actions of their government. They didn't want to scare people, they wanted to get the government to bring those people home, even if their goals were misguided and way too lofty for them to attain.

If my government stripped me of a bunch of rights, I'd protest and lobby and write to congress. If it accomplished nothing, I'd work to force my government to reconsider. If that included acts that damaged government property, then so be it. We're not ruled by a government, we're led. If they lead us the wrong way, we're given the right to re-direct them.

Am I a potential terrorist? Are you calling the police on me right now?

Ayers spoke out against the government's decision to stay over in Vietnam. Then he acted out in ways that didn't physically hurt anyone intentionally. He was willing to put his freedom on the line to try and get people from his country back home away from danger, and from a progressively meaningless war.

That bank robbery included several members of the weathermen. Bombing is a violent means of force. It is illegal. You're actually endorsing violent destruction of property. I guess you're a potential terrorist if you approve of such things. I guess you've found a fitting candidate for your twisted views. I don't believe in forcing gay marriage upon individual states. By your logic, it's ok for me to go and bomb popular ceremony sites. I don't think it would be ok for me to do that, even if they were empty at the time. Your logic is twisted and wrong. No wonder you'd back such a dangerous candidate.

Like I said, the bank robbery wasn't endorsed.

Bombing is something I wouldn't want to do, but if I was pushed to the ground by a government that stripped its people of rights(which is incomparable to simply not supporting federal forcing of gay marriage) I'd push back. No one rules my life other than me. Seeing as how gay marriage is viewed on a state-by-state basis, and Churches can't be forced to wed anyone they don't want to AFAIK...it's a non-issue. Just because the government says(hypothetically) that gay marriage is legal, it doesn't mean ministers are forced to wed everyone. Separation of church & state protects them in that case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone bombing and violent acts in any case aside from extreme situations where a government shifts from a democracy to, say, a fascist regime or a dictatorship, or whatever. I mean, there's troops in Iraq and people are generally opposed to that. The effects of such a popular reaction? The current government has a 30% approval rate, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the next President will be of the opposing party, who will be pressured to get the troops out within a quick-yet-feasible timeframe. Thus, victory for the protesters. Pro-life supporters have been protesting for a good while, so McCain tosses in a VP who's very pro life, and is shooting high to overturn Wade vs Roe. Thus, victory for the protesters.

Protest, writing to congress, and even surveys in general can cause a positive effect in the political spectrum. It's when we're denied rights/freedoms, and when we're oppressed is when people need to band together and do something, and if the prior motions of action can't get it done, then docility needs to be thrown out the window. I support revolution only when it's absolutely necessary, and violent protest only when absolutely necessary. Others are more hasty to action, and others just curl up in a ball and hope their government will afford them safety and just leave them alone.

If your government became a military state, would you make yourself heard if conventional methods didn't work, or would you shame your forefathers and submit to an anti-American, unconstitutional government?

if you listened to black talk radio at the time, you would have heard everyone saying "AND?" after listening to the sermon played.TBoogy

Amen.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Trashface, your view is narrowminded. Maybe we thought things were pretty good under Clinton and want to have that again. And I know for a fact that you are blowing the Ayers thing out of proportion. So Obama knows a proffessor. McCain and Biden admit they are long time friends. Do you think they must have the same views because of it? Should I question Biden for calling an adulturer a friend?TBoogy

No,my view is purely common sense. It's not about "knowing a professor". They are friends of 20 years. Obama has called the hateful and radical Jeremiah Wright his MENTOR. Menotrs teach. The fact that you excuse these red flags make you seem very uncaring for the country and/ or gullible.

Yes, I suppose racism would be a non issue to a racist.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Um...he's already almost 73. I think he's on borrowed time as it is.

Lockedge

Do you know his medical conditions? His heart rate? Do you have access to his medical papers?

No?

So you have only blind speculation based on his age to go "well, he might die in presidency, so he shouldn't be voted for."

You can find his medical papers, all 1,500 of them. If there is even a chance of him dying in office, his VP choice becomes a very big issue.

Hey at least McCain gives people access to his past. You know Obama's campaign has blocked access to documentation of his pst, right? Who knows what he's hiding with ties to people such as Bill Aires. I can't believe people are actually trying to elect someone WITH TIES TO TERRORISTS. It's like some want to purposefully destroy the country.

Prove it

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.I'd be hard pressed to say the Weathermen as a whole are responsible for the robbery deaths. That just didn't make sense according to their political stance, so I'm thinking it was more the individuals. Those individuals all went to jail for what they did.

Terrorists have the primary goal to inspire fear. The Weathermen were speaking out, and then acting out against the government based on the federal stance on the Vietnam war.

Yep, terrorism. Are you trying to candy coat something to appease your conscience enough to support this person? Why would anyone want to elect someone who's mentor is Bill Ayers? There is NO justification.

Are you attempting to dodge my logic, or are you maybe just a little tired, and are skimming?

Terrorism is to evoke fear. Like you conveniently cut out in the quote. The bank Robbery wasn't a Weathermen job, it was performed by members of multiple groups, and all those people went to jail. No one was intentionally killed by the Weathermen group. The Weathermen were making protests against certain actions of their government. They didn't want to scare people, they wanted to get the government to bring those people home, even if their goals were misguided and way too lofty for them to attain.

If my government stripped me of a bunch of rights, I'd protest and lobby and write to congress. If it accomplished nothing, I'd work to force my government to reconsider. If that included acts that damaged government property, then so be it. We're not ruled by a government, we're led. If they lead us the wrong way, we're given the right to re-direct them.

Am I a potential terrorist? Are you calling the police on me right now?

Ayers spoke out against the government's decision to stay over in Vietnam. Then he acted out in ways that didn't physically hurt anyone intentionally. He was willing to put his freedom on the line to try and get people from his country back home away from danger, and from a progressively meaningless war.

That bank robbery included several members of the weathermen. Bombing is a violent means of force. It is illegal. You're actually endorsing violent destruction of property. I guess you're a potential terrorist if you approve of such things. I guess you've found a fitting candidate for your twisted views. I don't believe in forcing gay marriage upon individual states. By your logic, it's ok for me to go and bomb popular ceremony sites. I don't think it would be ok for me to do that, even if they were empty at the time. Your logic is twisted and wrong. No wonder you'd back such a dangerous candidate.

Like I said, the bank robbery wasn't endorsed.

Bombing is something I wouldn't want to do, but if I was pushed to the ground by a government that stripped its people of rights(which is incomparable to simply not supporting federal forcing of gay marriage) I'd push back. No one rules my life other than me. Seeing as how gay marriage is viewed on a state-by-state basis, and Churches can't be forced to wed anyone they don't want to AFAIK...it's a non-issue. Just because the government says(hypothetically) that gay marriage is legal, it doesn't mean ministers are forced to wed everyone. Separation of church & state protects them in that case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone bombing and violent acts in any case aside from extreme situations where a government shifts from a democracy to, say, a fascist regime or a dictatorship, or whatever. I mean, there's troops in Iraq and people are generally opposed to that. The effects of such a popular reaction? The current government has a 30% approval rate, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the next President will be of the opposing party, who will be pressured to get the troops out within a quick-yet-feasible timeframe. Thus, victory for the protesters. Pro-life supporters have been protesting for a good while, so McCain tosses in a VP who's very pro life, and is shooting high to overturn Wade vs Roe. Thus, victory for the protesters.

Protest, writing to congress, and even surveys in general can cause a positive effect in the political spectrum. It's when we're denied rights/freedoms, and when we're oppressed is when people need to band together and do something, and if the prior motions of action can't get it done, then docility needs to be thrown out the window. I support revolution only when it's absolutely necessary, and violent protest only when absolutely necessary. Others are more hasty to action, and others just curl up in a ball and hope their government will afford them safety and just leave them alone.

If your government became a military state, would you make yourself heard if conventional methods didn't work, or would you shame your forefathers and submit to an anti-American, unconstitutional government?

Those acts made no progress. The civil rights progress we have made aren't a result of violence, but of peaceful demonstrations (MLK, Parks and so on). You asking me what I'd do in the case of a military state is irrelevant because America has never been a military state. You've tried to deny that strong ties to Bill Ayers are ok, but how can you say it's ok for Obama to name the hateful and biggoted Jeremiah Wright as his mentor? Ideals have been instilled.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]if you listened to black talk radio at the time, you would have heard everyone saying "AND?" after listening to the sermon played.tbone29

Amen.

And that makes it ok? That's insane that you're approving of such hateful biggoted bile. No wonder you back him.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Trashface, your view is narrowminded. Maybe we thought things were pretty good under Clinton and want to have that again. And I know for a fact that you are blowing the Ayers thing out of proportion. So Obama knows a proffessor. McCain and Biden admit they are long time friends. Do you think they must have the same views because of it? Should I question Biden for calling an adulturer a friend?TBoogy

No,my view is purely common sense. It's not about "knowing a professor". They are friends of 20 years. Obama has called the hateful and radical Jeremiah Wright his MENTOR. Menotrs teach. The fact that you excuse these red flags make you seem very uncaring for the country and/ or gullible.

Oh no, I completely think that such racism runs through much of the black community. many of them buy into the racist rants of Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Writght, louis Farrakan and so on and don't realize that they're being played and manipulated into believing that they are oppressed. Yes, once upon a time, they were opressed, but now opportunity is everywhere. Racism can never go away if people don't stop hating others and segregating themselves. You can't see the irony or hypocrisy because you buy into it. If it weren't fortheir hatred and racism, they wouldn't have a job. Wright, Jackson, and the others thrive on the anger and racism they breed.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Trashface, your view is narrowminded. Maybe we thought things were pretty good under Clinton and want to have that again. And I know for a fact that you are blowing the Ayers thing out of proportion. So Obama knows a proffessor. McCain and Biden admit they are long time friends. Do you think they must have the same views because of it? Should I question Biden for calling an adulturer a friend?Trashface

No,my view is purely common sense. It's not about "knowing a professor". They are friends of 20 years. Obama has called the hateful and radical Jeremiah Wright his MENTOR. Menotrs teach. The fact that you excuse these red flags make you seem very uncaring for the country and/ or gullible.

Oh no, I completely think that such racism runs through much of the black community. many of them buy into the racist rants of Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Writght, louis Farrakan and so on and don't realize that they're being played and manipulated into believing that they are oppressed. Yes, once upon a time, they were opressed, but now opportunity is everywhere. Racism can never go away if people don't stop hating others and segregating themselves. You can't see the irony or hypocrisy because you buy into it. If it weren't fortheir hatred and racism, they wouldn't have a job. Wright, Jackson, and the others thrive on the anger and racism they breed.

i agree, racism preached by supposed leaders of the back community is disgusting.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

Uh, it's a well known fact that Obama is a 20 year friend of Bill Aires who is involved with the weatherman man organization who is responsible for terrorist acts. You saying prove it is like you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala.

Trashface

On one hand, most of the "weathermen" have regretted many of their previous actions, including Bill. That said, there's nothing shameful about stepping up against your government. Ayers made a telling quote that is very true:
"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still. [...] To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral".

They saw something the government was doing wrong, and called them on it. I don't like the idea of bombing, and the thought of killing or inflicting pain on someone hurts. That said, it's no different than what happened recently in France with the riots and fires. Those were justified, and to a point the weathermen were justified. They were hardly terrorists, just misguided revolutionaries.

Again, they shouldn't have killed, or bombed, but when peaceful protests don't accomplish anything, do you just lay down your sign and go home in submission? If your endless letters to congress don't accomplish anything, do you lay your pens down and stop trying? We put governments into power, governments and political parties don't. If people don't exercise their power, they lose it, which is what we're seeing today with swat teams and anti-protest police coming out full force at any hint of protest/rally, whether it's peaceful or not. In essence, we allow the government to police our voices.

So, really, Bill Ayres isn't a terrorist. He's a man who works for university, who used to be in a militia-esque group with misguided intentions, who so happened to cause a fair amount of damage.

I mean, in theory, the forefathers of America were terrorists. They tarred and feathered people, and burned people's houses down who didn't support them, among other nasty bits. You have to take things into context, and understand the meaning of the word terrorist.

They bombed and killed innocent people purposefully. They are terrorists. Also, you are wrong about Ayers being remorseful. He has recently said that he would do it all over if he could and that they actually didn't do enough damage.

They bombed places, yes. They also called in advance to evacuate those places so no one would be hurt. Ayer's comment about not doing enough damage was purely on non-human targets. There were two policemen and a Brinks guard killed in a bank robbery, performed by members of a couple of groups. Aside from three or so of their own members that died in Greenwich, I can't recall any other casualties. Just institutional damage.I'd be hard pressed to say the Weathermen as a whole are responsible for the robbery deaths. That just didn't make sense according to their political stance, so I'm thinking it was more the individuals. Those individuals all went to jail for what they did.

Terrorists have the primary goal to inspire fear. The Weathermen were speaking out, and then acting out against the government based on the federal stance on the Vietnam war.

Yep, terrorism. Are you trying to candy coat something to appease your conscience enough to support this person? Why would anyone want to elect someone who's mentor is Bill Ayers? There is NO justification.

Are you attempting to dodge my logic, or are you maybe just a little tired, and are skimming?

Terrorism is to evoke fear. Like you conveniently cut out in the quote. The bank Robbery wasn't a Weathermen job, it was performed by members of multiple groups, and all those people went to jail. No one was intentionally killed by the Weathermen group. The Weathermen were making protests against certain actions of their government. They didn't want to scare people, they wanted to get the government to bring those people home, even if their goals were misguided and way too lofty for them to attain.

If my government stripped me of a bunch of rights, I'd protest and lobby and write to congress. If it accomplished nothing, I'd work to force my government to reconsider. If that included acts that damaged government property, then so be it. We're not ruled by a government, we're led. If they lead us the wrong way, we're given the right to re-direct them.

Am I a potential terrorist? Are you calling the police on me right now?

Ayers spoke out against the government's decision to stay over in Vietnam. Then he acted out in ways that didn't physically hurt anyone intentionally. He was willing to put his freedom on the line to try and get people from his country back home away from danger, and from a progressively meaningless war.

That bank robbery included several members of the weathermen. Bombing is a violent means of force. It is illegal. You're actually endorsing violent destruction of property. I guess you're a potential terrorist if you approve of such things. I guess you've found a fitting candidate for your twisted views. I don't believe in forcing gay marriage upon individual states. By your logic, it's ok for me to go and bomb popular ceremony sites. I don't think it would be ok for me to do that, even if they were empty at the time. Your logic is twisted and wrong. No wonder you'd back such a dangerous candidate.

Like I said, the bank robbery wasn't endorsed.

Bombing is something I wouldn't want to do, but if I was pushed to the ground by a government that stripped its people of rights(which is incomparable to simply not supporting federal forcing of gay marriage) I'd push back. No one rules my life other than me. Seeing as how gay marriage is viewed on a state-by-state basis, and Churches can't be forced to wed anyone they don't want to AFAIK...it's a non-issue. Just because the government says(hypothetically) that gay marriage is legal, it doesn't mean ministers are forced to wed everyone. Separation of church & state protects them in that case.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone bombing and violent acts in any case aside from extreme situations where a government shifts from a democracy to, say, a fascist regime or a dictatorship, or whatever. I mean, there's troops in Iraq and people are generally opposed to that. The effects of such a popular reaction? The current government has a 30% approval rate, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the next President will be of the opposing party, who will be pressured to get the troops out within a quick-yet-feasible timeframe. Thus, victory for the protesters. Pro-life supporters have been protesting for a good while, so McCain tosses in a VP who's very pro life, and is shooting high to overturn Wade vs Roe. Thus, victory for the protesters.

Protest, writing to congress, and even surveys in general can cause a positive effect in the political spectrum. It's when we're denied rights/freedoms, and when we're oppressed is when people need to band together and do something, and if the prior motions of action can't get it done, then docility needs to be thrown out the window. I support revolution only when it's absolutely necessary, and violent protest only when absolutely necessary. Others are more hasty to action, and others just curl up in a ball and hope their government will afford them safety and just leave them alone.

If your government became a military state, would you make yourself heard if conventional methods didn't work, or would you shame your forefathers and submit to an anti-American, unconstitutional government?

Those acts made no progress. The civil rights progress we have made aren't a result of violence, but of peaceful demonstrations (MLK, Parks and so on). You asking me what I'd do in the case of a military state is irrelevant because America has never been a military state. You've tried to deny that strong ties to Bill Ayers are ok, but how can you say it's ok for Obama to name the hateful and biggoted Jeremiah Wright as his mentor? Ideals have been instilled.

It's true the Weathermen made no progress. Most faced punishment for what they did. It's why those demonstrations simply don't work on such a small scale. There's no reason to do that stuff when simple non-violent protests can suffice, as they have in modern history. I enjoy when people can cooperate and compromise using words instead of bullets and bombs. I prefer resolution to revolution.

I don't think asking you what you'd do in that situation is irrelevant, but I guess that's understandable. Just consider what happened in germany during WW2, and how the population reacted. I'm positive modern government is above such regulations, but you also won't find me very happy with the patriot act and many of the law revisions made in the past 8 years. When peaceful protests are broken up by police firing rubber bullets and assaulting "uncooperative" protesters, I have to wonder exactly how far they plan to go with restricting what we're allowed to do, and what we're not allowed. I don't think peaceful protests deserve that kind of employed force laid upon it.

I don't enjoy how after 9/11, the government seemed to think its primary job was making sure the American populace was scared as hell, with that stupid "threat colour meter" thing.

As for the Obama situation...Ideals instilled? I don't buy that. My dad is probably the biggest racist, sexist bigot I know, who thinks the police need more power, we should nuke the middle east and Russia, take oil by force and not pay a cent, apply "shoot to kill" orders during protests, etc. etc. etc.

I don't follow my dad in any of those ways. Instead, I looked at what he had that could make me a stronger person, and that's what I focused on. I don't like that he's such a bigot, and I've approached him about it numerous times(to no avail, really) but he doesn't act out on it so I don't really see it as anything overwhelmingly bad.

Look, I can't read Obama's mind. I'd imagine that that Jeremiah Wright WAS a mentor for him, but I doubt he'd be the next-coming of Nixon in terms of personality. I want to believe what Obama says about uniting a population. I'm skeptical that he'd be able to follow through, but I do want tp believe that's his goal. That maybe he saw Wright as a flawed man, and learned from him that changes need to be made, instead of wanting to put into action Wright's ideas.

Obama is a bit of a flake, but I've yet to be convinced that this Mr. Wright negatively influenced Obama.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="TBoogy"][QUOTE="Trashface"]

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Trashface, your view is narrowminded. Maybe we thought things were pretty good under Clinton and want to have that again. And I know for a fact that you are blowing the Ayers thing out of proportion. So Obama knows a proffessor. McCain and Biden admit they are long time friends. Do you think they must have the same views because of it? Should I question Biden for calling an adulturer a friend?kingyotoX

No,my view is purely common sense. It's not about "knowing a professor". They are friends of 20 years. Obama has called the hateful and radical Jeremiah Wright his MENTOR. Menotrs teach. The fact that you excuse these red flags make you seem very uncaring for the country and/ or gullible.

Oh no, I completely think that such racism runs through much of the black community. many of them buy into the racist rants of Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Writght, louis Farrakan and so on and don't realize that they're being played and manipulated into believing that they are oppressed. Yes, once upon a time, they were opressed, but now opportunity is everywhere. Racism can never go away if people don't stop hating others and segregating themselves. You can't see the irony or hypocrisy because you buy into it. If it weren't fortheir hatred and racism, they wouldn't have a job. Wright, Jackson, and the others thrive on the anger and racism they breed.

i agree, racism preached by supposed leaders of the back community is disgusting.

It all ties into the liberal scheme. When these leaders get people to think they are oppressed and can't survive without help, they've secured themselves in a state of power. Same way with liberals telling people they can't succeed without the assistance of the government. Sadly, the people that believe them don't understand that they can succeed at whatever they want. Fooled into bounding themselves into socialism.

[QUOTE="kingyotoX"][QUOTE="Trashface"]Oh no, I completely think that such racism runs through much of the black community. many of them buy into the racist rants of Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Writght, louis Farrakan and so on and don't realize that they're being played and manipulated into believing that they are oppressed. Yes, once upon a time, they were opressed, but now opportunity is everywhere. Racism can never go away if people don't stop hating others and segregating themselves. You can't see the irony or hypocrisy because you buy into it. If it weren't fortheir hatred and racism, they wouldn't have a job. Wright, Jackson, and the others thrive on the anger and racism they breed.

Trashface

i agree, racism preached by supposed leaders of the back community is disgusting.

It all ties into the liberal scheme. When these leaders get people to think they are oppressed and can't survive without help, they've secured themselves in a state of power. Same way with liberals telling people they can't succeed without the assistance of the government. Sadly, the people that people them don't understand that they can succeed at whatever they want. Fooled into bounding themselves into socialism.

4. Liberalism only succeeds when the public is scared into believing that it will not survive without it.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="kingyotoX"][QUOTE="Trashface"]Oh no, I completely think that such racism runs through much of the black community. many of them buy into the racist rants of Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Writght, louis Farrakan and so on and don't realize that they're being played and manipulated into believing that they are oppressed. Yes, once upon a time, they were opressed, but now opportunity is everywhere. Racism can never go away if people don't stop hating others and segregating themselves. You can't see the irony or hypocrisy because you buy into it. If it weren't fortheir hatred and racism, they wouldn't have a job. Wright, Jackson, and the others thrive on the anger and racism they breed.

Nintendo_Ownes7

i agree, racism preached by supposed leaders of the back community is disgusting.

It all ties into the liberal scheme. When these leaders get people to think they are oppressed and can't survive without help, they've secured themselves in a state of power. Same way with liberals telling people they can't succeed without the assistance of the government. Sadly, the people that people them don't understand that they can succeed at whatever they want. Fooled into bounding themselves into socialism.

4. Liberalism only succeeds when the public is scared into believing that it will not survive without it.

If that's the truth, then is the Liberal Left behind the Patriot Act that people were scared into accepting, thinking their country would be bombarded with attacks unless they put it into place?

No, we just dont think it was racist. I am surely not racist, though it would be justified if i were. luckily i was able to let it go in my 20s, but i admit it was hard. and as such, i would totally understand if Michelle is just now proud of america. this race has made me get over any lingering anger i felt, too. that, and talking to people on facebook and being surprised by the people of the world around me. people are cooler than i thought. there is my story. TBoogy

I don't think Racism is ever justified. It just breeds more racism.

Also, may I add:

Let's say something happens to the oldest person running for a first term (that's John McCain), our country would be run by a woman who has been a governor for the almighty state of Alaska for less than two years. Yea, that sounds like a great idea!