[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

[Andreas Schou]

> Clever move. You had a hidden definition in your vocabulary based upon
> legal charges as opposed to plain English. Now you're being
> disingenuous because most of the people in this forum, including me,
> use plain English when we communicate.

In sane moral outlook, moral opprobrium is attached to *what you do*.
Serial felonious vandalism is really bad. But there's no sane moral
outlook that makes blowing up storefronts, police cars, and phone
booths the equivalent of the largest act of mass murder ever
committed.

> You're the one exploiting their memories because if we apply your
> logic to the 9-11 terrorists, which includes your definitions, then
> they were ordinary vandals who also committed murder.

Non sequitur goes here. People who did not commit murder are not
responsible for committing murder. People who did commit murder are. I
suspect, however, that this is already clear to you.

> By your definition they were not terrorists. Try to be consistent, it'll help
> you to appear honest.
>
> ". . . to be fair, if you read Liddy's biography, as I have, and if
> you listen to him on the radio, as I do, then you'd know that Liddy
> justifies his illegal activities by arguing that America was fighting
> a two-front war at the time — one in Nam and the other on the streets
> of the US.
>
> "You don't have to agree with his argument, but it has its merits [...]

Oh, here we go, Doug. Why don't we discuss what you think the merits
of that argument are? Can we please do that? Why do you think a
traitor is worth listening to?

> If you read my post in context, I was not arguing that Obama is not a
> NBC. My point was that the msm has not reported on many of these
> legitimate questions surrounding his candidacy and I put together a
> short punch list of some of those questions. Our exchange is proof
> that we simply do not have many hard facts about Obama. But there are
> some very interesting developments in that case as well as on the
> Kenyan front.

Right. They've asked him to produce his birth certficate. You can find
an electronic reproduction of the certificate on Obama's website. You
can find photographs of the actual certificate on Factcheck.org, which
is the same place you can find Barack Obama's birth announcement. You
can find the words "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution, and
you can find the requirements for US citizenship -- jus sanguinus
(which he has, through his mother) or jus soli (which he has, because
Hawaii is American territory) -- in 700 years of Anglo-American common
law. This is not mysterious. This is obvious.

The media is not commenting on questions about Obama's nationality
because questions about his nationality are a naked smear. A lie. A
racist one, at that, just like -- for instance -- your decision to
only refer to him as "Barack Hussein Obama."

>> The board was appointed by the people who claim they appointed the
>> board; the only person listed by name in the letter: Adele Simmons,
>> Debbie Leff, and Patricia Graham. Ayers used the "royal we" in
>> reference to the organization, a phrasing that would be syntactically
>> bizarre if he had been the only one working with Simmons, Leff, and
>> Graham. If he had been referring only to himself, English *does* have
>> a first-person singular pronoun.
>
> The "royal" we is your interpretation that is supported by the same
> evidence for my interpretation. And Ayers aint talking to nobody. You
> could be right and I could be right. But we both can't be right. And
> as stated before, these are the legitimate questions that a healthy
> press would normally investigate.

The issue has been investigated. The article by Stanley Kurtz -- the
most hostile possible investigator -- reveals no ongoing relationship,
merely a possible involvement in his appointment to the board of
directors. This is literally the best that the most hostile
investigator can produce.

Let me remind you of the chain of evidence you're trying to get me to
follow: (1) Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, because (2) he had a
long-standing relationship with a 60s radical, which is established
because (3) one quarter of the votes for his confirmation to the board
of a nonprofit funded by a Nixon ambassador came from that person,
which is established because of (4) a syntactically ambiguous sentence
in a letter nestled amongst '70 linear feet' of nonprofit records,
found by (5) an incredibly hostile right-wing commentator. Is that it?
That's the best you can find?

> In Obama's case, however, such an
> investigation would constitute racism because only racists hold Obama
> accountable.
>
>> If deliberately misread to imply that Ayers was involved directly in
>> the appointment of the board of directors, this makes him a fourth
>> member of the selection committee, not the person with the sole
>> responsibility for selecting Obama. Incidentally, this, itself would
>> be bizarre: board committees generally have an odd number of members
>> to establish clear majorities.
>
> THE WHOLE THING IS BIZARRE. What in the world was Obama doing with
> Ayers?

The incredibly controversial work of creating parent-teacher
associations in poor black neighborhoods. I mean, those were basically
the extent of the activities of the CAC's grantees: attempts to get
parents involved in the education of their kids. This is not
controversial, radical stuff, except to the extent that if you're
funding community organizations in poor black neighborhoods, you're
funding left-wing organizations. The right, for whatever reason, has
no particular attachment to funding organizations in black
neighborhoods.

I wonder why that is?

> And any way you look at it, we know for sure that Ayers was NOT
> just a guy who lived in Obama's neighborhood. Why did Obama lie about
> that?

In the context of being introduced as the new person running for the
Hyde Park state Senate seat (the context in which the question was
asked) that was his most important relationship to Obama: some guy who
also lives in Hyde Park and was hosting a fundraiser.

> If he didn't know Ayers was a terrorist, why didn't he say so sooner?

Because only right-wing lunatics thought the association was important
enough to comment on, and Obama is not in the business of commenting
on the fever-dreams of right-wing lunatics?
]
-- ACS