Stop Talking About Wright, Start Talking About Ayers

[Annie]

Such a good idea, for those that want to really know Barack. A suggestion, read and check out the links before suggesting killing anyone:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/05/lets-accept-mic.html

May 01, 2008
Let's Accept Michelle's Invitation

Michelle Obama, not surprisingly, wants to turn the page on Jeremiah Wright and focus on the issues:

“Let’s not elect somebody who has been there and hasn’t done it,” Michelle Obama said in a fairly clear reference to Clinton. She said education was the issue that most concerns parents and her husband is the only one who can make changes there.​

“It’s going to take us being, as a nation, deeply passionate and angry about the failing education for all kids,” she said. “When was the last time we heard some really solid questions for these candidates on education in a debate? You know all about the issues in our personal lives, but ... education is the thing we should be angry about.”​

I completely agree, so let's talk about Barack and education reform.

An excellent launching point is this April 2, 2008 Slate piece by Alexander Russo, but eventually we will segue to Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weatherman Bill Ayers.

The Obama/Ayers soundbite is this: Obama and Ayers (a professor of education) worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for several years in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to reform Chicago's public schools. The extent of their relationship is not clear, since Obama has been opaque on this topic both in a televised debate and at his website. However, Ayers was instrumental in founding the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Obama was the group's first chairman, so there is something being concealed there.

Let's start with Slate:

Chicago School Days
Obama's lackluster record on education.

....

 

[Onceler]

Oh....because of their "close ties," right Kathianne?

What a fun little side your on. Do you guys know how to do anything aside from distort & distract?

 

[Onceler]

I've actually got a much better proposition. How about we stop talking about Wright and Ayers, and talk instead about recession, food riots, $4.00 gas prices, interminable wars, lost global reputations, immigration, education reform, the housing crisis, the credit crunch, the weakening dollar, trade policy, etc. etc. etc.

Let me guess: as a Republican, you'd MUCH rather talk about Ayers, right?

 

[Annie]

Oh....because of their "close ties," right Kathianne?

What a fun little side your on. Do you guys know how to do anything aside from distort & distract?

How about 'you're' instead?

Did you read? You haven't a comment on the topic?

 

[Damocles]

How 'bout we talk about all of that and Wright and Ayers?

The complex human can do all of that and more.

 

[Annie]

I've actually got a much better proposition. How about we stop talking about Wright and Ayers, and talk instead about recession, food riots, $4.00 gas prices, interminable wars, lost global reputations, immigration, education reform, the housing crisis, the credit crunch, the weakening dollar, trade policy, etc. etc. etc.

Let me guess: as a Republican, you'd MUCH rather talk about Ayers, right?

Geez, are you saying you don't know how to start or participate on the myriad of threads that are started on those topics?

 

[Onceler]

How about 'you're' instead?

Did you read? You haven't a comment on the topic?

Oh noze....the spelling police!

I'll out-grammar anyone here, but that was a magnificent find, Kathianne. I stand corrected.

As for the topic...what substance have you offered here that is anything beyond what you presented last night? I read your entire first post (I hope I got that "your" correct), and there is nothing to substantiate "close ties," as you keep alleging and implying.

"The extent of their relationship is not clear" - man, that is damning stuff. No doubt that, after education reform, their next project would be to blow up the Pentagon.

 

[Onceler]

How 'bout we talk about all of that and Wright and Ayers?

The complex human can do all of that and more.

Show me a few complex humans in the current political climate & I might agree with you.

 

[Annie]

Oh noze....the spelling police!

I'll out-grammar anyone here, but that was a magnificent find, Kathianne. I stand corrected.

As for the topic...what substance have you offered here that is anything beyond what you presented last night? I read your entire first post (I hope I got that "your" correct), and there is nothing to substantiate "close ties," as you keep alleging and implying.

"The extent of their relationship is not clear" - man, that is damning stuff. No doubt that, after education reform, their next project would be to blow up the Pentagon.

On the grammar thing, call it defensive. I don't usually do that, for fear that I'll make a more glaring mistake in this post.

As for the topic, I purposefully did not draw conclusions, as I've already been hit with a wish to bash my head in. Damo will back me up, I've really not participated much on this board, because it is so inhospitable to those that don't agree with the majority, of which you are one.

 

[Damocles]

Show me a few complex humans in the current political climate & I might agree with you.

Everybody here, all of them, even Jollie, speak on other subjects as well as this one that you fear so much.

 

[Onceler]

On the grammar thing, call it defensive. I don't usually do that, for fear that I'll make a more glaring mistake in this post.

As for the topic, I purposefully did not draw conclusions, as I've already been hit with a wish to bash my head in. Damo will back me up, I've really not participated much on this board, because it is so inhospitable to those that don't agree with the majority, of which you are one.

I'm inhospitable to dishonesty, not with well-argued minority positions. We're not stupid, Kathianne; I don't buy a routine of someone saying Obama had "close ties" with Ayers, and starting a thread with a title like this one (which, like it or not, implies that there is "more than meets the eye," as the posted article does, without any facts to back it up), and then say "I'm not really drawing any conclusions."

It's insidious stuff, but I understand that this is the nature of political discourse in 2008. Doesn't mean I'm not going to ridicule it & let people get away with it.

 

[Damocles]

On the grammar thing, call it defensive. I don't usually do that, for fear that I'll make a more glaring mistake in this post.

As for the topic, I purposefully did not draw conclusions, as I've already been hit with a wish to bash my head in. Damo will back me up, I've really not participated much on this board, because it is so inhospitable to those that don't agree with the majority, of which you are one.

True.

 

[Damocles]

Lorax, you know very well that implications have been made about righties on this very site with less.

Posting about this subject is well within the context of the campaign and within the subject matter that this board covers.

 

[Onceler]

Everybody here, all of them, even Jollie, speak on other subjects as well as this one that you fear so much.

What's the proportion? Take Jollie, since you brought him up - what proportion of his posts deal with alleged "Obama scandals" guilt by association, compared to the posts he starts on, say, the economy, or energy policy?

Oh, I know, I know - I start plenty of Wright posts. And you're damned right I fear it; how many campaigns have to derailed by BS, and how many lesser Presidents do we have to have because of it, before it's okay to have a little "fear" when it happens again, while Rome is kinda starting to burn around us a l'il bit?

 

[Onceler]

Lorax, you know very well that implications have been made about righties on this very site with less.

.

So, it's okay to let those pass without comment, as well?

What problem do you have with the way I'm approaching this? I'm not talking about censorship. I'm asking her to defend her allegations of "close ties."

Seems a small thing to ask.

 

[Damocles]

What's the proportion? Take Jollie, since you brought him up - what proportion of his posts deal with alleged "Obama scandals" guilt by association, compared to the posts he starts on, say, the economy, or energy policy?

Oh, I know, I know - I start plenty of Wright posts. And you're damned right I fear it; how many campaigns have to derailed by BS, and how many lesser Presidents do we have to have because of it, before it's okay to have a little "fear" when it happens again, while Rome is kinda starting to burn around us a l'il bit?

Does it matter? You said to show you who speaks on other topics.

I do note that you start more threads on this topic than any other poster.

Every poster here is capable and willing to speak on other topics. You simply fear this one more than most.

 

[Annie]

I'm inhospitable to dishonesty, not with well-argued minority positions. We're not stupid, Kathianne; I don't buy a routine of someone saying Obama had "close ties" with Ayers, and starting a thread with a title like this one (which, like it or not, implies that there is "more than meets the eye," as the posted article does, without any facts to back it up), and then say "I'm not really drawing any conclusions."

It's insidious stuff, but I understand that this is the nature of political discourse in 2008. Doesn't mean I'm not going to ridicule it & let people get away with it.

Considering I had no ulterior motive in the title, I thought it straight up, I'm unsure what you are reading into it.

 

[Damocles]

I've actually got a much better proposition. How about we stop talking about Wright and Ayers, and talk instead about recession, food riots, $4.00 gas prices, interminable wars, lost global reputations, immigration, education reform, the housing crisis, the credit crunch, the weakening dollar, trade policy, etc. etc. etc.

Let me guess: as a Republican, you'd MUCH rather talk about Ayers, right?

This is not asking her to defend anything, it is simply trying to silence her with sarcasm and bitterness.

Maybe you should cling to a gun?

 

[Annie]

What's the proportion? Take Jollie, since you brought him up - what proportion of his posts deal with alleged "Obama scandals" guilt by association, compared to the posts he starts on, say, the economy, or energy policy?

Oh, I know, I know - I start plenty of Wright posts. And you're damned right I fear it; how many campaigns have to derailed by BS, and how many lesser Presidents do we have to have because of it, before it's okay to have a little "fear" when it happens again, while Rome is kinda starting to burn around us a l'il bit?

I thought 'he' was a 'she.'

As for myself, trust me, my interests span a gamut, yet here I feel safe only posting in few. Even then, I find a death wish upon me.

It's 'You', not us.

 

[Annie]

So, it's okay to let those pass without comment, as well?

What problem do you have with the way I'm approaching this? I'm not talking about censorship. I'm asking her to defend her allegations of "close ties."

Seems a small thing to ask.

I get so freakin' confused with the names. Lorax? Onceler? Are they the same?