It's politic right now to say that he doesn't care about the two terrorists... because the only job he needs to accomplish with this is making undecided voters aware of Ayers (and then Dohrn, and Odinga, and Rezko, and Pfleger, and Wright, and al-Masouri, and on and on).

Later comes the "With friends like these, who is Barack Obama, really? What would his administration look like?"

I doubt Obama would be dumb enough to appoint Ayers as his Secretary of Education -- which I think is McCain's point in dismissing Ayers as an individual -- it's what Obama's long association tells us about who he would appoint, and what policies he would pursue.

The more you guys pound this crap the more desperate you appear and old man Potters poll numbers go lower and lower.

Gibson may have been trying to get Obama to be more open and honest with his more personable approach in the interview in Lorie's post. He did look concerned in the second half of the video, like he wasn't getting the openness and answers he was looking for.

In the McCain interview, I believe that Gibson really likes McCain and wants to at least appear fair with his questions. McCain again comes through with flying colors because he is open about where he thinks American's feelings are right now, and the fact that Obama has not been candid about anything.

Bears repeating more than ever--America has had the knack of having the right person for the right time, in any given situation. Even a cursory look through our history will bear this out. The stumbles,(Carter), merely serve to point out the correct path.

I see no reason for this election to defy that tradition.

If and when Obama wins the election, will that mean that the American people have expressed a preference for a leader who associated with a washed-up terrorist to a leader who associated with George W. Bush?

"expressed a preference for a leader who associated with a washed-up terrorist to a leader who associated with George W. Bush?"

Yeah, hyper, that was pretty damn stupid. I'll bet you don't even know why.

Wht ths rs thng s clrl bt nw, nd th vdnc s bcmng clrr frm vds f Pln/McCn rlls ["Kll Hm", "Trrrst", "Nggr"], s tht th brwn-shrts n th rght hp t whp p ngh frnz mng th mnsllbc McCn/Pln spprtrs t cx sm crtn t tr t ssssnt bm.

dn't thnk Pln s brght ngh t ndrstnd wht sh hs bn tld t d, Gdgt t th Rchstg, bt cnsdrng th tns grsp n rlt mst f th rght hv sh s gttng hr mssg t ld nd clr: bm s trrrst nd mst b tkn t.

ppl r pshng ths W t hrd nd w t lt t cnvnc n vtrs. r trng t psh mrn nt dng r drt wrk.
You're pushing too hard lava, chill it.

"If and when Obama wins the election, will that mean that the American people have expressed a preference for a leader who associated with a washed-up terrorist to a leader who associated with George W. Bush?" -- Hyperbolist

"Yeah, hyper, that was pretty damn stupid. I'll bet you don't even know why." -- LaMedusa

Hyperbolist, your mistake was referring to McCain as a leader. You know better than to do that.

Assuming that conservatives are rational, one would predict that they would not want to drag the election down to the Lee-Atwater-Karl-Rove slime pit, even though they're desperate, since the Democrats will fight back with:

Keating 5.

But the initial assumption, of course, is incorrect.

Let's just see how well McCain explains his Keating-paid trips to the Bahamas, accompanied not just by his wife, not just by his children, but even by his babysitter.

Herman, you need to lay off reading the gossip mags about movie stars.

I won't explain hyper's comment about association and the error he made, but you also appear to be challenged in understanding it.

In other words,herman,you are a dumbass.

The association with Keating is easy. McCain did it for a major employer in Arizona. The Senate said that was bad judgement and McCain said that in hindsight, it surely was.

If anyone claims to be perfect (other than Obama and Jesus Christ) please let me know.

Now leave us look at something else, for a change, and FBI check.

This is the way it works, if memory serves. Perhaps Steve can give us more details.

If the FBI gets a whiff of an "Improper" association, they ask the one they are checking to write down every meeting they had with the association and complete details of conversations, phone calls, visits to common places; everyone.

They then interview everyone they can find to verify. They also ask the association to detail meetings, etc. From all the information gathered, sometimes by more than one meeting, the FBI reaches a conclusion, yes or no.

Steve, did I get right?

jhow, it's nice that you're able to contribute to the conversation.

LaMedusa, there are pictures of McCain hugging George W. Bush Jr., who currently "enjoys" a 24% popularity rating and is demonstrating less leadership right now than one would think possible. They share the same views on many issues including economic ones. That's politically devastating. Associating with a douche bag like Ayers? Apparently not so, as the only people getting fired up about it are those already firmly in the McCain camp.

How's your 401k?

The Keating Five
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-keating-1,0,3744890.story

Four of them are or were Democrats.

Struggling to hold onto that power.

Here is what Obama said:

"I'll repeat again what I've said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois," Obama said.

"The notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points."

No discussion of starting his political career in the guy's living room.

No discussion of serving on the Woods Foundation together.

No discussion of being the Chairman for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as started by the guy and a couple of his friends.

No discussion of when he found out about the terrorist background.

Look folks, this is easy. All it takes is a tiny bit of knowledge about how politics work.

It is not credible to me that;

Obama didn't know full well that the Godfather of Politics in Illinois was Thomas Ayers.

Obama didn't now full well that the path to Thomas Ayers' money was through Bill.

Obama didn't know full well that the guy had been a terrorist in his past.

Of course he knew. You don't do politics in Chicago without a play book. That just levels a charge of stupid at Obama and he clearly isn't stupid.

Obama never gossiped? He never asked the guy's background? that stretches the truth to the point where it breaks. And normally the MSM is tuned into such shenanigans, but not when they are in the tank.

Simple question: How can Obama claim to fight agianst terrorism when he began his political career in the living rooms of 2 notorious, unrepented terrorists? How would he have any credibility on the world stage? It's bad enough that all Osama bin Laden has to say is, "President Obama, just listen to what your former preacher had to say about 'God Damn' America".

How's your 401k?

hyperbolist:
You've got the wrong party, Bush is a
republican. The democrats are the ones
who have fubared the taxpayers 401ks.

How's your 401k?

hyperbolist~

Technically, that's none of your business. But for the sake of argument, I'll just say that because I watch my finances it's probably a safe bet that you have a long way to go with your "Taco Bell" bonuses.

No discussion of starting his political career in the guy's living room.

It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama's home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama's current house.

"If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack," Rabbi Wolf said.

No discussion of serving on the Woods Foundation together.

What discussion do you want?

In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama's first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times

Ooooh... scandalous!

No discussion of being the Chairman for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as started by the guy and a couple of his friends.

Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project

Shocking! Did they play footsie?

Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him. In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.

By the way... Annenberg? McCain is touting their support.

No discussion of when he found out about the terrorist background.

In a CNN interview aired Monday, Axelrod said that when Obama went to Ayers' home in 1995, "he didn't know the history" of Ayers' radical past.

Look folks, this is easy. All it takes is a tiny bit of knowledge about how politics work.

To try to blow something insignificant into your main campaign theme so as to provide a distraction from real issues? Yes, you're right, it takes a lot of knowledge of politics. McCain apparently lacks that knowledge.

This is so sadly desperate it's pathetic. McCain's latest attack ad asks "Who is Barack Obama really?" Folks, he's been running for pres for 2 years. If you don't know who he is by now by now, you ain't been listening. Hannity and the rest of the neocon brownshirts have been ranting and sputtering about his "radical" connections ever since it was apparent he would best Hillary for the nomination. It's not that the alleged leftwing media haven't mentioned this crap, they have; it's just that given everything else going on, especially the last seven years, people just don't care.

C'mon all you Great Americans, give the majority of your countrymen the props they deserve.

Democrats quivering with rage in 2004 - "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae - it doesn't need regulation!" Bush backs down on regulation.

Democrats quivering with rage in 2006 - "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae - it doesn't need regulation!" Democrats won't allow regulation to pass.

Democrats quivering with rage in 2007 - "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae - it doesn't need regulation!" Democrats block regulation. Obama gets money for being a good little Senator.

Democrats quivering with rage in 2008 - "It needed regulation all along, and Bush didn't do anything!"

Yeah, let's trust the Democrats with our 401Ks - they REALLY know how to keep the money growing! (Um, at least in their OWN pockets. And that's all they really care about...)

C'mon all you Great Americans, give the majority of your countrymen the props they deserve.

groucho, that's exactly what we're doing by asking the question, "Who is Obama, really?"

http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/nationaltour/index.html

For all the trolls, this is not about McCain, it's a referendum on Obama. The more people know about the man, the less they like. Deny it all you want, people in this country are still to the right and do not wish to put a man who has had marxist mentors (Frank Marshall Daviss/Saul Alinsky) and racists(Rev. Wright) and terrorists (Ayers/Dorne) in his past and when they discover his ties to ACORN and the mortgage meltdown, even the most apolitical people are shocked.

Democrats quivering with rage in 2008 - "There's nothing wrong with Barak Obama - he doesn't need any examination!"

There, fixed it for you.

P.S. Maybe they'll solve the 401(k) problem by taking them away.

Oh, I forgot that perennial goodie -

Democrats quivering with rage on Social Security Reform every time it's mentioned: "There's nothing wrong with Social Security! It doesn't need reform!"

And also here in GA -

Democrats quivering with rage on actually requiring ID for voters: "There's never been any cases of voter fraud, so we don't need to show ID when voting!"

Hell, all you've got to do is show an ACORN card, and you can vote until your hand cramps!

Brian, do you think these radicals just allow anyone to get close to them? Do you think just maybe they get to know them before they let them into their inner circle? Why don't you run out and try to join a motorcycle group and see if they allow you go to their closed meetings. Well, Obama hung out with people who committed crimes against the United States, who thought Charles Manson a good person. You just do not hang with those people unless they have a lot in common with you.

McCain/Palin rallies evoke Germany in the 30s.

What a sad and pathetic little man McCain has become. But then maybe he's been smoke and mirrors his whole political life. He doesn't even have the stones to challenge Obama face to face. He hides behind Palin's skirt and basks in the throes of the Hilerite like crowds.

He has no answers, he has no plans. He's destroying his once admirable image. A sad shell of a formerly admirable man.

On a side note, if he does pull this out, he's going to end up with a solid democratic congress and then we'll see him try and sell his soul one more time. He'll never get an extremist judge or another silent dolt on the Supreme Court thank god.

Brian, do you think these radicals just allow anyone to get close to them?

What is this, the Skull and Bones club? Zel, it was 30 YEARS AGO. Do you think he's still checking for the secret handshake?

The more you guys pound this crap the more desperate you appear and old man Potters poll numbers go lower and lower.

Then what are you worried about?

Who's worried?

'that's exactly what we're doing by asking the question, "Who is Obama, really?" '

It's the question the failing McCain campaign has decided to ask now that it's clear they're losing the battle on the issues, and badly. It won't get traction from the non-Wizbang portion of the electorate because they have already made up their minds. When whoever McCain's brain is these days realizes this is a non-starter, we'll see Captain Queeg careening off on another quasi-Napoleonic tangent. I give it a week or so.

Holy shnikes, JFO... Project much?

When the trolls come out of hiding, something good is happening.

Maybe that's a bit harsh regarding McCain, but I agree with JFO, it's sad. And I don't think he's going to bring this to Obama next week face to face in the debate, althought if his poll numbers start to free fall, who knows. I'd hate to see it, though, I'd prefer more civil discourse on how to prevent America from becoming a second or third rate nation. That's the important shit on the line next month, not who someone had dinner with 20 years ago.

It won't get traction from the non-Wizbang portion of the electorate because they have already made up their minds.

That would be the MSM, and I'm not putting any bets on the ones that actually follow their manufactured polling results.

not who someone had dinner with 20 years ago.

See how little you pay attention? You're stuck on 20 years ago. You aren't questioning anything that happened with the school funding in Chicago, or money funding Obama's campaign now. And it wasn't dinner, it was the launch of a campaign.

He'll never get an extremist judge or another silent dolt on the Supreme Court thank god.

JFO:
You consider judges who are constitutionalists
as extremists? Then you must like activist
judges such as Ginsberg who believes we should
be under international law and the UN.
I take it you're all for the over throw of
our Constitution.
That's nice to know you're looking forward to
seeing this country die, and become a socialist
country on it's way to being the new USSR.
That worked out real well, didn't it.

Who's worried?

Not you, certainly.

If and when Obama wins the election, will that mean that the American people have expressed a preference for a leader who associated with a washed-up terrorist to a leader who associated with George W. Bush?

Likely, it will mean that Obama got his money worth from ACORN.

Oh yes, Obama & Ayers, how about McCain and G. Gordon Libby. Ayers is not a convicted felon, but McCains buddy Libby is.

Lets hear the explanation for that one, the real truth, not the GOP BS that is spewed out.

Allen:

How right you are. Neither is Clinton a convicted felon nor OJ.

Guess we all know where your moral compass is.

Show me a man's friends and I show you his character. Obama's is just what you'd expect from a community organizer.

how about McCain and G. Gordon Libby

Who the hell is G. Gordon Libby?

Anyway, Liddy didn't help bomb the pentagon, then years later say he wished he could have done more. Carter had at least the common sense to commute his sentence because he knew that he, along with Nixon, were only "doing what everyone else was doing"(includes the dems), the only problem is they got caught.

Hh, tch, LMds. M nvstmnts, fr wht t's wrth, r n GC-tp spndng ccnts, grnrng 4% fr th nxt 3 rs. Tht's fr cr bv th vrg RRSP/401k. dn't wrk fr Tc Bll, thgh d nj thr dlcs 7 lr brrt--'ts wrk f fst-fd rt.

McCn s s bnd, t's xhlrtng rdng clwns tr nd drl th nvtbl wth rd hrrngs. bm s gng t b n nsprng ldr whn r ntn mst nds t, nd r chldrn wll fl t s wh th 2008 lctn md s cmcll pplctc. snd cntnkrs ld ct t d JFK's jb, t's n srprs tht 'll ct ndgnnt whn nbd crs bt bm's ssctns wth rs, Wrght, nd Rzk.

since the Democrats will fight back with:

Keating 5.

Please, let's see that fight.

1. Of the five, four of them were Democrats.
2. Of the five, McCain and Glenn were the only ones who were cleared by the Ethics Committee f acting improperly, though they were critized for poor judgement.
3. Both Glenn and McCain admitted that attending those two meetings were bad mistakes.
4. The feeling of Americans at the time were that this Keating 5 example were indicative of how Congress behaved in general, and that these five simply got "caught". Remember, again, that this was a Democrat-majority congress, and had been a Democrat-majority congress for 20+ years.

In fact:

"During the 2000s, several retrospective accounts of the controversy reiterated the contention that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[24][29][33][15] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain,[24] as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[29]" -source, Wiki, with further sources linked(24,29,33,15)

Yes, please bring up the Keating Five (oh, and why not, The House Banking scandal as well. That ought to be a hoot)

McCain hung out with a fellow named Keating, who, unlike Ayers, actually went to prison for committing a felony.

What's that, Herman? McCain was exonerated of any wrong doing and admits he made a mistake?

You send a cantankerous old coot to do a JFK's job,

With no disrespect meant to his family, JFK got himself killed doing his job in a very corrupt way. That is what happens when your dad is hooked with the mob.

Ref #39 &40, damn I love it when you try to minimize McCain's ties to Libby. Also about the Keating 5, you guys really try to confuse the issue.

Why can't you face the truth? Both of them are crooks, and will fleece us taxpayers more. Please wake up.

You love trickle down economics, look what is happening from that. Hopefully you people have very secure jobs. Me, I'm retired, with a very good retirement plan that you people hate. TS. But the fact remains, we all are in this together, and when you have the stock market going south, unemployment going up, and the BS you spout about demo's having control of congress, that isn't correct.

But continue your BS, and attacks on Obama & Ayers, because the majority of American voters realize the sleaze behind it. That is the only issue the GOP has.

And you people are too scared to admit that just maybe, McCain is not going to win. But the fact remains, who ever gets into the White House has some serious problems to solve.

Personally, I hope McCain wins, because 4 more years of the same policy will sink the GOP forever. We need a third party, that will work for the American taxpayer, not the crooks in office now.

McCain hung out with a fellow named Keating, who, unlike Ayers, actually went to prison for committing a felony.

(I'm sorry in advance Jay, et al, but I've about had it with this kind of crap. And if it gets me banned, c'est la vie)

Herman, you fucking idiot:

1. Ayers was a fugitive from the law, you know, "Underground". Osama Bin Laden hasn't been to prison for committing a felony either, dipshit.

2. The only reason he didn't get his arse pounded in prison is that his charges were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct. Only THEN, was Ayers willing to "turn himself in". What a pussy.

3. These Weather Underground fuckers are frankly little different than the current batch of "suicide" bombers in the Middle East. They used shrapnel pipe bombs with the intent to maim and kill (and in fact did kill). Ayers should be rotting in a Supermax for conspiracy to commit murder several times over.

So, yeah, Keating deserved his jail sentence, but fuck you for your false moral equivalence.

/harsh rant mode off!

Who the hell is G. Gordon Libby?

Uh, yeah, exactly, if you are going to bring up a rebuttal, do try to get the name right.

Anyway, Liddy didn't help bomb the pentagon, then years later say he wished he could have done more.

No, in fact he fully admitted his involvement in the Watergate break-in and served federal time for it. Doesn't excuse him for his actions, though.

No, in fact he fully admitted his involvement in the Watergate break-in and served federal time for it. Doesn't excuse him for his actions, though.

Absolutely, James. But there remains the obvious difference between the two men and their "associations".

Brian:

You are getting better at this. Less rhetoric and more facts.

Ok, I believe you, from the NYT article, it is false to say the Obama started his political career in Bill Ayers living room. He actually started it at a Rabbi's house. He also had a coffee at Ayers. Is that better?

I will give you a pass on the Wood's Fund. Obama was on the board for six years before Bill Ayers joined. My point was that it had not been discussed as a point of contact.

Skipping over the Annenberg Challenge for a moment, Axelrod actually said he didn't KNOW when Obama found out about Ayers' background.

Do you believe that? In any event, it was obfuscation at best and a lie at worst.

And it was something that Obama does not want to reveal. I duno why, but I can guess; whatever he says, unless it is a truth he doesn't want known, might backfire on him if there is someone who knows the truth and is keeping silent at this point in time.

Now for the big one.

I read the complete report issued at the three year mark. I also have read your point about who nominated Obama to join the Board, where the Board members elected him as Chairman, to be exact and specific.

William Ayers was heavily mixed up in School Reform for Illinois as was his brother John. And daddy's money and influence was in the mix as well.

Ayers and two others were the ones who went into competition with other groups to get the money from Annenberg. Now how do you suppose that a terrorist got the money in competition with the Mayor, for crying out loud?

Daddy's money. And Daddy's power.

I suspect you issue is how close was Ayers and Obama, right? Yes, I did read the blurb about how Obama got on the Board. I almost bought it. Almost.

See the Challenge had some requirements. There had to be two sets of matching funds; one from private sources and one from public. Eventually, 49.2 million was from Annenberg, 49.2 million from private groups (see Thomas Ayers group) and 49.2 from public financing.

Given how easy it was for Mayor Daley to give way to Ayers, you can see Daddy's money at work one more time.

Now we get to the good part. It is alleged that Ayers wasn't even at a meeting where Obama's name came up to join the Board. If you believe that Ayers had no clue who Obama was and no role in his elevation to Chairman, I have a bridge to seel you in NYC.

Both Obama and all of the Ayers were all over School Reform Act in the late 80's. Of course Ayers knew who he was.

If you read the report, you will NOT find Obama's name anywhere except for a footnote. Ayers is all over the place. Why wouldn't the Chairman get a mention or two?

For the Woods fund, the grants during Obama's overlap has disappeared from the web site.

The last time I was in Chicago, I had lunch with a couple of lobbyists. Since I used to do that kind of work in Louisiana, we got into a discussion of how things work in the two places. Both of them told me that Chicago was a heckofa lot worse than Louisiana. I had a problem believing it.

But I did get the understanding that everyone is interconnected in Chicago. They all know each other and they work together on the power Boards, the ones with tons of money. I had to laugh at one point, when one of the guys said something to the effect that the main reason why Chicago was worse is that there was a lot more money at play. I had to agree with him on that one.

I have tried to look at this from your point of view rather than my own. So I am gonna put my conclusions in a different way.

There is no smoking gun, just a lot of smoke. Ayers and Obama knew each other because at the level they both played, it was impossible for them to NOT know each other. They knew each other well enough for Ayers to support a coffee for Obama, and also Ayers let him on the Board and was ok with him being Chairman of the Challenge, Ayers pet project.

Oh, by the way, I looked up the age of Ayers kids. Trust me, they didn't go to school with Obama's kids. Too old.

So how close were Ayers and Obama? It is likely we will never know unless someone in Chicago politics commits suicide and tells us. Obama bobs and weaves on the subject and Ayers isn't talking. Neither is Axelrod with anything of substance. Hell, even the reporter for the Sun-Times didn't really want to go into details on Greta's how tonight. So what the heck was he there for?

Bill Ayers is a key player in Chicago because of his Daddy's money. Obama needed political support and that went through bot Black politicians like Emil Jones and the Godfather, Thomas Ayers. I think it is likely that Ayers and Obama knew each other well enough to USE each other for their own self interests. Ayers had a hard time with certain black leaders. Obama was perfect to give him a front.

Obama needed the influence and money, just like all politicians do. And while it was all right at the time to have an association with Ayers - nobody with a brain would find fault because of Daddy'smoney - it isn't all right now. So Obama is dodging, bobbying and weaving, in my opinion, because of what he had to do at the time to get to where he is now.

I still think that Obama and Ayers were closer than either of them want to admit. But I have no proof other than the initial reaction of Obama that they barely knew each other is a falsehood.

Now the very short version. Sorry for the long post.

The point of the investigation of the Ayers/Obama connection isn't necessarily that Obama was close personal friends with a known terrorist. I think there is an even better point:

Mr. Clean is not so clean. Got it?

By that I mean if you dig around trying to find out about Ayers/Obama, the collateral material paints a pretty dingy picture of Barack H. Obama as just a very talented but sleazy product of the Chicago cess pool of politics.

If obama was applying for a job with the FBI or CIA or any other government job, would he pass the background test????
Does not seem so, but it is okay for him to be President????
I feel like I'm in universe where right is wrong and wrong is right.
I could understand people wanting to vote Democrat and not liking McCain, but to pick obama is beyond reason.

JFO and Hyper are the same women. Always going for the ever so intellectual "brown shirt" and "hitler" reference. Any rally for Obama is an event, but a rally for McCain is reminicent of Hitler rallies. See how low the scum on the left immediately go? They have no defense of Ayers, but instead of urging Obama to say Ayers is scum and I shouldn't have hung out with him, the left immediately starts smearing a true patriot and war hero. The left's motto is: Party first, country second. ww

That you use the word "women" as a pejorative is revealing of just how f*cking stupid you are, Willie. I've never compared anyone to Hitler, that's a shitty argument. Stop barking at shadows you moron.

And now it's obvious that not only do you have low regard for gay people and Muslims (as evidenced in previous threads), but you also think being a woman makes one less of a person. If you're married, I pity your wife, and any daughters you may have.

Hyper, again you proved my point. Thanks. ww

J66-Hyper is just a non USA agitator. He has not rights in this country. He just likes stirring the pot with his juvenile names and smears, etc. The usual tricks of the lefty trade. He is from the great and mighty canada, so he is an expert on world affairs. ww

I agree that the Ayers connection raises important questions. I fully expect McCain to raise them during the next debate. Face-to-face, man-to-man.

I proved your point because you're a homophobic misogynist? You are such a moron, it's embarrassing.

jhow, what do you mean "you people"? A majority of Americans and the vast majority of people in other countries? As for minorities, you're part of one, as I assume you're a white male conservative--the loudest, most obnoxious minority of them all. "Gay loving fag"--ten year old children produce wittier insults than that.

Oh, and Willie, I like my country, and I like your country. I have never said that my country is incredibly important in the grand scheme of things. You're thing one who always brings it up.

The idea, though, that I cannot criticize your government or any other facet of your society is retarded. Following that argument, you would not be allowed to criticize any country but your own, yet I'm sure you had some nasty things to say about (e.g.) Saddam Hussein--and rightfully so. There is no reason why people should not criticize nations other than their own, so you can stop your bleating.

"You're thing one..."--as a member of the grammar police, I am ashamed of myself.

Well, as for me, I think it is ok to have a low opinion of some women, some gays, some Canadians, some kids, some adults, some Republicans, some Democrats and most Muslims, the religion of hate and death. And I have a low opinion of many of our political class, for whom personal power is more important than doing their jobs. They confuse power with ability to achieve.

I personally form opinions about people based on who they hang out with, what they do, or just as important, what they don't do; how loyal they are to their family, to their Country and to their ethics, morals, personal integrity and yes, how they handle compassion.

J66-I want you to know that Hyper called you a 10 year old and then calls me homophobic, misogynist, moron and retarded, yet he criticizes you for your "childish" attitude.

Hyper-United States citizens can criticize other countries because our tax dollars, military, humanitarian efforts and our donations go all over the world. I don't expect you to get the point, but I will refrain from calling you a name only to say you are drowning in your ideology. And also, I find it interesting that you think I am male and also if I were to call you a women, YOU think it is an insult. Interesting. Hmmm! Drowning I say, drowning. ww

My f***ing tax dollars go all over the planet too, you douche. Our soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban--you know, the political group that harboured the perpetrators of 9/11? Also, I've traveled to other countries, and have a decent understanding of other cultures. You, on the other hand, revel in your own ignorance.

I *think* you're a male? Well, I've never met a woman named Willie before. You *used* the word woman as an insult, Willie, so don't try to be clever because you just aren't capable of spinning your own words. You'll make yourself dizzy.

Some people deserve to be called morons. You are one of them. Don't be such a baby about it.

Larry--exactly. I dislike some gay people too, but not because they're gay. That's a sign of a poisoned mind. (See: jhow, "Wild" Willie, et al.)

Ouch! Hyper, are you PMS'ing? What a rant.

I have said homosexuals are considered a sexually deviat lifestyle. I never said I hate them, dislike them or anything of the sort. I work in healthcare a belieive me, I am friends with many. I don't want anyone being harmed is they are not harming others. I just don't believe in their lifestyle. Of course, you cannot understand that, being the world traveler and cultural expert. I do note that you puff up your resume everytime you comment. Why is that? Are you insecure or not recognized enough? Are you the type of personality that has to be encouraged often? I think so. ww

I know you said their lifestyle is deviant. It isn't. Most prejudiced people hide their intolerance, but you wear it on your sleeve. In the 21st century, Willie, you should do better.

As for "puffing up my resume", you constantly belittle me as a naive Canadian, so I have to explain that I have relevant experience/education to comment on issues you think I am not qualified to comment on.

JFO--I think the people demanding Obama be killed are morally consistent (regardless of how repugnant they clearly are). If he is indeed a traitor or a Manchurian candidate or whatever, then patriotic duty would require a true patriot to do everything possible--everything--to ensure he doesn't assume control of the Executive branch of government.

I never heard anyone say Obama should be killed. I know he shouldn't be our president, though.

Hyper my buddy, you have been puffing yourself up for some time, to a point where you became an annoyance. Put some reality in your comment.

I have always been honest of my opinion yet you called me prejudice? What and I keeping people from? You are the classic case of an idiot.

I belittle your country which in fact I tell the truth about your country because you feel it necessary to critic mine. But, since you are a lefty, that means you can, I can't. ww

Boo Hoo, hyperwhatever made me cry.sniff sniff

you are all a bunch of a.h.s