A Cover-Up in the Making? Obama Hides Ties to Terrorist Ayers

"The Collection is closed because it has come to our attention that there is restricted material in the collection."

It's of interest precisely because it is closed. I recently read an article that outlined discrepancies in the Obama's portrayal of his early life. I believe they are relevant because I'm sure they will be used after the convention by the Republicans. The CAC files closed or open to the public could bring Ayres into the candidate's narrative.

bring Ayres into the candidate's narrative.

Published in the NRO and seeded in Newsvine? And not for the first time, either?

I'd say Ayres is in the narrative...he just doesn't seem to stick there, mostly because the majority of the public don't seem to think it's relevant.

I know it's a conservative site but that they are focusing on making it a "scary" issue is worth a glance.

I'd be curious as to what Barry thinks of the views on eduction theories from his "neighbor" Bill Ayers. This should come up in the domestic issues debate and watching him dance around the radicalism of Ayers's views which are on full display on the latter's website (which is replete with red commie star) should be another masterpiece of Obama's patented talents for obfuscation and equivocation.

It would be relevant if their was new evidence regarding the influence Ayers implemented towards Obama's benefit. It wouldn't mean anything to me, true, but it would matter to many people. I really don't see much evidence of a close relationship. And all of the stuff Obama has written, which is extensive, does not encourage violent protests.

If you do a Wikipedia search on Ayers--his CV is publicly available--his list of peer reviewed publications are rather conservative and devoted to education.

Terorist are cause terror by attacking civlians. Ayers and the weather underground not only, opnly attacked governemtn buildings but also claled ahead to warn people and never once did they kill anyone(a coupel weather underground members will killed making a bomb)
Not exactly bin ladin were they?
The right is doing a great diservice to this country by so dilluting the term terror.. and basically saying there is no such thing as a freedom fighter.. or rebel.. you know that whole second amendment designed to make sure you could proptect yourself fromt he gov.. that's aterrorist admendment.

They bombed gov building, they warned all the popel there, they never killed anyone.. akak they ARE NOT TERRORISTS... THEY DID NOT CAUSE TERROR>>> THEY ARE NOT TERRORISTS

The San Diego the public schools idolize Pancho Villa, a terrorist who, because he's a 'mexican folk hero' is considered a hero in the San Diego city schools.

Its the national review and this guy who wrote it is a fellow at the Hudson institute. He headlines it Cover up but notes he may have a coverup story because they would not show him some records. The right is desperate.

The largest product liability settlement of all time, the phen fen company (Wyeth) settled over 11,000 phen fen lawsuits for $4.83 billion. Phen fen deaths and phen fen serious conditions and side effects sought compensation for the damages and losses experienced due to the negligence of the drug company.

If terrorists cause the deaths and maiming of of innocent civilians, what makes corporations immune from causing the same devastation by willful negligence? Do we want to take the deaths of irresponsible corporate supporters and tally them on each side of the campaign? How many supporters have contributed to how many unnecessary deaths? Are we interested in threats that come only from individual citizens, because corporate killing doesn't count, no one is responsible?

Jules, I'm glad we haven't had a real argument and you didn't know where I live. I'd have a gun under my pillow.

This sounds like a threat, however indirect. The above quote is very disturbing and I have clicked the "!" icon marking it as inflammatory.

I'd be curious as to what Barry thinks of the views on eduction theories from his "neighbor" Bill Ayers.

I'd be curious to know who is his neighbor Barry. Oh, is this your new name for future President Obama? That's a knee slapper, Bill! Yuk yuk.

mostly because the majority of the public don't seem to think it's relevant.

Correction: the majority of the media think it's irrelevant. The poster has no idea what the majority of the public thinks of this issue. And it's what the electorate will make of it that matters anyway.

What did the Weather Undergound (Bill Ayer's outfit) do?

The Weather Underground blew up several Chicago Police cars at that time as well.
They bombed several police cars in Berkley.
Then they detonated a bomb at the San Francisco Police Department, during which one officer was killed and several others were injured.

When 36 sticks of dynamite were discovered at a police precinct in Detroit, Bill Ayers just happened to be in town.

Later, several of the Underground's own members died when they accidentally blew up their own bomb factory in New York. The bomb was intended to be used at an officer's dance at Fort Dix. The bomb they were going to use was packed with nails for maximum damage.

Then another bomb factory was discovered in Chicago's North side. Their weapons cache was also discovered in an apartment in Chicago's South side.

Then they blew up the National Guard building in DC.

While they continued to hide from indictments, Bernardine Dohrn issued a "Declaration of A State Of War."

They claimed credit for the explosion of the San Francisco Hall of Justice, which never occurred.
Later, an undetonated explosive device was discovered on the premises.

...so much for them not being terrorists...

It's amazing, isn't it, that the Followers simply don't care? Worse, Obama can't tell the difference.

I'd be curious to know who is his neighbor Barry. Oh, is this your new name for future President Obama? That's a knee slapper, Bill! Yuk yuk.

That's what he called himself until recently. Boy, you slap your knee a lot, I've noticed. Do you do the hambone too?

re: #1.13:

The poster has no idea what the majority of the public thinks of this issue.

The Waynester has no idea what the poster has ideas about.

"The Waynester" Hey, I like that. No, I just was going by what you said, are you now not sure of your statement?

; ) Glad you approve. No, I'm just saying...you said I don't know what the general public thinks. And I'm saying you don't know what I know. For all you know, I could be the executive VP of one of the most important polling firms on the East Coast.

Unless we decide to go out onto the street and do duelling citations at forty paces, we're kinda at a standoff; a "he said/she said" scenario.

(I call shotgun on being the "he"....)

I think we could agree that the general public hasn't considered the issue and so has no opinion on it...yet. And I believe that that is because the media hasn't shown much interest, for obvious reasons. I mean if it was found that McCain had some prior relationship with, say, David Duke, the media wouldn't hesitate a millisecond because, you know, "the people have a right to know."

Jules, I'm glad we haven't had a real argument and you didn't know where I live. I'd have a gun under my pillow.

This sounds like a threat, however indirect. The above quote is very disturbing and I have clicked the "!" icon marking it as inflammatory.

I have to disagree with you on that. I don't see it as a threat of any kind.

the media wouldn't hesitate a millisecond because, you know, "the people have a right to know."

Waynester, you seem to be implying some massive liberal media bias against McCain. It seems to me that in this day and age that's somewhat dinosaurial thinking. There are lots (and LOTS) of purely right wing rags these days, just as there are left-wing rags.

So it's not that the media (including Newsvine) has swept this under the carpet. It's not getting any traction because the people (including Newsviners) don't think it's relevant.

Uh huh; yeah, right. I'm not going to argue it because it's like arguing what the color of the sky is. If you can't see any bias in the 80-90% Democrat media there's nothing I can say that's going to disabuse you of that notion. Again I revert back to the three most important things about bias. 1 Everyone has it
2. The most difficult to recgnize is your own
3. The media in Washington DC and NY( where virtually all the political reporting originates) vote 80-90% Democrat.

I would bet that NV is even more lopsided to the left. At least that's my impression since joining. It would be intersting to do a poll if one hasn't been done already.

The rags you speak of are self-selecting in terms of readership and as such are irrelevant to the argument. Most people still get their News from the big three TV newscasts, which get their ideas and story framing mostly from the NYT. It is changing; the outright monopoly is over but we're not there yet. The biggest news monopoly that's still more or less intact is the AP. You can't do news in this country without it.

Waynester, I don't deny that there's at least some truth in what you're saying.

But if it were as lopsided as you claim, there is no way that the U.S. would have had two straight terms of Republican government.

Saying that there has been no great traction around this story because the liberal media have buried it is an utterly unprovable assertion anywhere except in your own mind, and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.

My assertion was that people don't care, and as an example I cited the fact that on Newsvine -- despite it being another liberal bastion, in your mind -- the story has received coverage, and still gotten no traction here.

Your response is that this is because Newsvine readership is even more lopsided (which I doubt, and which is also unprovable).

So, then, it's not that the media is lopsided, at least here, it's that the electorate, at least here, is lopsided. So again, I say, they don't care about this issue, or don't think that it's relevant, or that they believe it's circumstantial guilt by association. Or even more troubling to the right, that they believe what many have expressed on this thread, which is that Ayers and his associates were NOT terrorists, but rather somewhat radical rebels who were fighting on the side of justice, even if their methods were ill-advised at best, and should therefore be extended a degree of leeway (an assertion which I submit the justice system seems to agree with given that both Ayers and Bernadette Doern are currently not resident in the federal penal system).

And maybe that's what galls certain people in certain camps the most, eh? Well, that, and the fact that a Democrat is leading in the polls. I mean really, let's get down to basics, shall we? ; )

Perry @ #1.21:

I don't see it as a threat of any kind.

Maybe, and maybe not. The perception of a threat is in the mind of the perceiver, for good or for ill.

I submit, though, that bringing in mention of resorting to guns for any reason is rarely an advisable form of discourse if one hopes to achieve constructive dialogue.

Well, that, and the fact that a Democrat is leading in the polls

Which poll is that? Statistical dead heat in most, Reuters/Zogby has McCain ahead by five...

Historically Dems lead in the polls at this time, by a wider margin, even when they go on to lose.
Obama is in trouble, there's no getting around it.

Synthesis:"My assertion was that people don't care..."

Agreed, with perhaps the qualification that many USAers don't really have any understanding of world history, and the folly of nationalism and imperialism.

Read the article both candidates have Achilles heels. It may be of no import but it's going to get nastier after the conventions. Such things as being appointed the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by Ayres is hardly irrelevant. Obama says they barely knew each other there may be information contradicting that assertion.

He is a Professor today who is well respected in Chicago

Do you actually know anything about Bill Ayers's theories on education or are you just parroting what you hear from people who probably don't know much about them either? I'll give you a hint that they're by no means "well respected" at all except by a bunch of fellow traveling leftwingers.

Sol Stern writes:

. . .Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to "be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation." Ayers's texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation's ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers's major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

Unfortunately, neither Obama nor his critics in the media seem to have a clue about Ayers's current work and his widespread influence in the education schools. In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a "professor of English," an error that the media then repeated. Would that Ayers were just another radical English professor. In that case, his poisonous anti-American teaching would be limited to a few hundred college students in the liberal arts. But through his indoctrination of future K–12 teachers, Ayers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms.

Bill Ayers is an America-hating @!$%#head of the first order and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anything to with education.

Bill - The comment you are replying to is a reasonable comment. If one works at a university, like Obama and Ayers did, there might be some interaction. Either way, the guilt by association is total BS.

....be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation." Ayers's texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation's ed schools and teacher-training institutes...One of Ayers's major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

Considering education is very much the great social equalizer...and education is very much a force for social justice what is the problem?

So the guy was caught up in the emotion of the 1960's--and decided that violence was not the solution--education is the way to solicit social change. So?

I've worked in academia too long to buy arguments from someone who said they read something he wrote. Lets get the original publications--then debate.

How is it un-American to teach "social justice and liberation"? Last I checked, the US was supposedly all about justice and liberty. You know, We the People? Social Justice? No?

Bill Harrison, are you aware what you're labelling as "un-American" are the very concepts that caused the founding of the United States of America?

This earns my Facepalm of the Week.

How is it un-American to teach "social justice and liberation"? Last I checked, the US was supposedly all about justice and liberty. You know, We the People? Social Justice? No?

Only in the movies.

and decided that violence was not the solution--

He has stated recently that he "wished he had done more". Doesn't sound like he regrets anything to me.

Bill H. wrote

...and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anything to with education.

I would add: and certainly nowhere near the Presidency.

Either way, the guilt by association is total BS.

Not all of the time it isn't. Having a party at a neighbors house isn't something people just do, unless you are good friends with those people.

Clete

Perhaps it's escaped your attention but Bill Ayers "teaches" at the University of Illinois-Chicago while Barry was a lecturer at the University of Chicago's law school. I would simply like to know what his views are on Ayers's bull@!$%# theories of education since Billyboy's a neighbor and Barry was at least close enough to him at one point to accept a campaign donation from him and the missus and to serve on the board of the Woods Foundation with the @!$%#er. Given the facility that Barry's exhibited for throwing former friends under the bus he shouldn't have much trouble with this one.

If you think Ayer's views on Education are odd, see what they are on corrections (the penal system). And then see how Obama's votes in the Illinois state legislature show evidence of being influenced by Ayers' whack job theories.

Waynester, #2.11: "If you think Ayer's views on Education are odd, see what they are on corrections (the penal system). "

How about a link? I'm not even going to comment on the name calling and such. Just a link is fine.

Can't see where I name called anyone but nevertheless you can find Ayer's views on Prison in his book Fugitive Days: A Memoir. I don't have a specific quote but it is my understanding that he advocated getting rid of all prisons and giving criminals house arrest.
Prisons create a two-tired society and allows those who are not in prison to feel superior to those who are. Or some such nonsense.

From The Hill

In 1998, Obama was one of only three senators to vote against a proposal making it a criminal offense for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang.

In 2001, Obama voted against a measure that would have expanded the penalties for some gang activity to include the death penalty. The bill was vetoed by then-Gov. George Ryan (R ) not long after he had issued a moratorium on the death penalty in the state

Obama, at the time, said the bill would unfairly target minorities, stating, "There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color … I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing."

Obama opposes the death penalty except for terrorists, serial killers and child-murderers, but his campaign added that he does not support the death penalty as it is currently administered in this country...

Waynester--I can explain to you point by point why I think he voted the way he did, if we can have a civil conversation. I actually know a lot about this area of law. Spent too many years in grad school writing about it and reading the case law.

Maybe you can tell me why he voted the way he did on the Born alive legislation 3 times and then lied about why he voted against it. The campaign recently admitted that the reason he originally gave wasn't true. I'd rather hear that than the crime stuff; that can be easily predicted.

Bill

Noted. I do think the lack of access to the relevant documents is a valid point. I'd like to read thes documents. It probably won't change my vote because I vote on stated policies, and I agree with Obama's stated policies more so than McCain's. I liked McCain back in 2000, but now his stated policies sound more like the Bush's policies he opposed in 2000.

I would respectfully submit that you neither read the article nor know anything about Ayers or you wouldn't have made such a ludicrous comment in the first place. One, Ayers and his wife are terrorists. Two, they do have a connection with Obama and three, there seems to be some funny business going on with accessing the Chicago Annenberg Collection with is the basis of the article in question.

"they do have a connection with Obama "

So do the Bush family with the the bin Laden family. It's a BS connection in both cases.

"Obama began his CAC board chairmanship in early 1995, and stepped down from the chairmanship in late 1999, though he remained on the board until CAC phased itself out of existence in 2001."

This is noted in the public record. It belies that Obama had little contact with Ayres.

And I would respectfully disagree and tell you I did read the article.

None of the three points you made validates the peremptory nature of the headline. "Obama hides ties..." is a dramatically overinflated mis-statement of the content of the article, implying that evidence of this exists.

There is, in fact none. At best, there is speculation on the part of the author.

Once again, I strongly urge that the misleading headline on this seed be corrected.

Obama is a politician. He admits it. In his books he acknowledges that politics requires a person to compromises their beliefs. He's shifted his positions, just as McCain has done. Actually, I think either would be good Presidents. It's just that between the policies advocated by the two candidates , I prefer Obama's. It's sad, because I was a McCain fan in 2000. The policies he was advocating then I agreed with. (primarily balancing the budget)

In no way am I a supporter of the Raptor McCain. It's that (it maybe misinformation) some of what has been written by Obama is starting to come under attack. At the same time his Chicago connections are being explored for any hint of compromise. I find this sudden attention just before the convention disconcerting. It may be the way to force Republican coverage during the Democratic convention. The sort of salacious rumors spotlighted on cable news propaganda.

"Chicago Annenburg Challenge Shutdown?" is the full title (less subtitle) of the piece.

Can the seeder change the title to slant opinion or reflect his/her political views?

Even if it's subtle, to me doing so would seem like a violation. Would someone care to respond? Thanks.

For those who believe the headline is inaccurate I remind you the ! is available to report it!

I'm still waiting to see if the owner of the thread does the right thing.

But it's starting to look like the answer is no...

Quite a few on the left here phony up their headlines. Have you a problem with that as well?

Of course.

Why would you think I wouldn't?

Backroads assumes we're also biased. Ohohoho.

I'm not entirely sure why he even assumes he knows what my political leanings are, though....

What I don't understand is why a community standard of accuracy triggers accusations of political bias. Lots of people here are smart enough to dislike any abuses twisting the truth. It is an insult to our intelligence and Newsvine values to suggest that aiming for accuracy is nothing but petty politics. Regardless of what side you support, endorsing misleading material hurts us all.

Certain factions are fond of deflecting attention from the issue by crying 'bias', or hurling accusations of anti-this or anti-that at the slightest provocation.

I think it usually reflects defensiveness due to the fundamentally anti-humanist untenability of their positions.

Of course. We should also bring up the fact that though very wealthy (there are yet undiscovered scams) McCain takes payment from the government for three entitlements: Senate salary, SS and Vets benefits.

No lets not sink into the mire with the righties who are clueless. This is smear at its worst, There is nothing solid in this story at all. Like trying to put a tail on a whisp of smoke but then they got nothing so they want to at least get something up on the wire.

Does this mean we can bring up the Keating Scandal?

No. John McCain was a POW and is therefore above reproach and objective scrutiny from the press or any other nosy busybody types.

"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous," Ms. Wallace said.

Praise Jesus for the National Review Online printing this. They might have saved the white race from being enslaved, forced to gay marry and converted to Islam as Obama and his evil minions secretly intend.

Lord knows that no Republican would associate with terrorists, and they certainly would round up known terrorists if they are on American soil.

Oh man, what's that funky smell? Oh, never mind its just the putrid odor of Republican desperation. This sort of "story" only reinforces the convictions of people who would never vote for Obama or any other non-Republican candidate under any imaginable circumstances. Obama is not of their tribe and that's all they need to know. If Jesus Christ appeared before the whole world and miraculously presented irrefutable evidence that the GOP is controlled by Satan, the National Review would immediately label Jesus a terrorist-loving communist bent on destroying the world order and replacing it with a the New Islamic Caliphate, and this bullet point would be echoed ad nauseum (and verbatim) by the wingnut media until enough people actually believed it to make it effective. There is no convincing them otherwise, why waste time and electrons trying?

Oh ya, did I mention that John McCain was a prisoner of war? Just in case you hadn't heard. Also he's a maverick, and frequently votes against his own party! Just ask anyone on his campaign staff. Oh my! What a man!

Does this mean we can bring up the Keating Scandal?

This is called mis-direction. Whenever you're having trouble refuting the claims of your opponents, point to other issues that you think may distract. This one is only slightly more sophisticated than: "Oh look, a squirrel!"

I think it was a more global question, rather than pertaining to talking about the Keating Scandal in this particular seed.

This is called mis-direction. Whenever you're having trouble refuting the claims of your opponents, point to other issues that you think may distract. This one is only slightly more sophisticated than: "Oh look, a squirrel!"

Actually, its called pointing to something that a politician is actually responsible for as opposed to bashing one person over the actions of another.

Well they should find a thread in which the Keating scandal is a relevant topic and post there. What do you say? Is that a reasonable position?

Oh and how many bombs did Keating build or plant again? Yeah, it's the same thing, the exact same thing.

Senate ethics committe finding vis'a vis' John McCain

JOHN MCCAIN Republican, Arizona.

McCain "exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators," the committee said. But his actions "were not improper nor attended with gross negligence."

Get out the leg irons...

How many people got screwed out of their hard earned money because Obama made friends with a dirty businessman?

I like how its the "exact" same thing. Which in someways is true when you consider the whole character assassination angle your friends seem to be taking. Yep, I see that as the exact same thing.

John McCain was a POW and is therefore above reproach and objective scrutiny from the press or any other nosy busybody types.

Obama made friends with a dirty businessman?

One word: Rezko

Okay, I'll give Rezko to you. As far as Ayers is concerned, it's taking a non issue and blowing it out of proportion in order to imply that Obama is connected to a terrorist group, or himself is a terrorist.

Thanks
No, I don't think those things. But if you put Ayers/Dorhn thing with the Wright thing it just starts to look not so good. Doesn't he have any friends/supporters that are unapologetic in their support for the country? And why does he (and his wife) always find a way to criticize America? He could try being a little more like Kobe Bryant in his outlook and a little less like Michael Moore...

Like Wright, and I'm guessing Ayers, the main point is that they don't think the U.S. should follow an imperialistic foreign policy. That agrees with my readings of the philosophy of the founding fathers.

I didn't look at these links, but from reading your post it sounds interesting.

lilorphant,...I did read through them. Thank you for providing some further documentation.
Some who read through this thread will not have the time to do further research not even check out your links. For the most part these are specifically PR documents of the progress and some failures and how CAC dealt with them. The documents that are being withheld are more pertaining to individual and group decisions on how to move forward, bring financial stability and pursue programs related to CAC. The grants awarded would be on record.

Since this falls into my profession--and I know what I speak of....the tax returns of all 501c3's are public information and be be accessed at:

www.guidestar.org

Fair warning--the returns of larger non profits are likely several hundred pages long. But if you are patient enough to scroll through them, yes--every grant they issued, and to whom will be there.

Well your warning seems to make this a not perilous undertaking but one that struggles through much boredom. That's why I escape to NewsVine. At least I have some interaction and am offered the possibility of linking to sites that are relatively unspun.

Astute you are... reading an 900 page tax return is well...more boring than, reading a congressional bill?

I originally wanted to say so board you considered hanging yourself, but did not want anyone calling 9-11, though not far from the truth.

Better analogies are welcome.

So bored with life that you do something stupid like Camus Stranger.

Back then they were considered heros to a lot of Americans. We had a draft kids did not wnat it and there were several groups that responded by targeting the Pentagon for lying to us about the wars progress and spying on individuals. They were not terrorists.

No, they were not terrorists; they were rebels. Honestly, if I continue to see "TERRORIST, TERRORIST" being plastered all over the place, I'm gonna... turn off my computer?

That's a lot less threatening than it sounded in my head. Oh well.

It doesn't really matter. The question is what policies you as a voter supports. All else is BS.

Perhaps I should explain. one candidate thinks the Iraq war is a boondoggle. The other says Iraqi oil should be ours to pump for the next 100 years. Oh, and he'll defeat evil.

It doesn't really matter. The question is what policies you as a voter supports. All else is BS.

Well in my opinion it does matter,depending on the allegation. This one does raise a flag and is worth looking into. If Obama is indeed friends with the likes of someone like Ayers and Dohrn, then it does make me question what his motives may be while in the White House if he gets elected. Not to say that he shares the same thoughts and feelings as Ayers, like..

Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place "makes me want to puke."

Just doesn't sit right with me...

Obama has a history of paling around with folks who hate the country. I don't think he's Presidential material, though he seems like a nice guy.

Obama has a history of paling around with folks who hate the country

Which I find quite odd, things that make you say hm...

I don't think he's Presidential material, though he seems like a nice guy.

Agreed, and he does seem nice but with having acquaintances with people that hate America and running for President also seems like he's also up to no good, but that's just my take on it.

Just plain silly.

Yes, he is. Who knows how much of an aberrant view he has of the world at large.

LOL.. sure. As opposed to thinking Czheckoslovakia is still a country. Or that Iran borders Pakistan. Or maybe your campaign saying the candidate doesn't speak for the candidate. Or maybe being unable to use a computer. Or maybe your handlers won't let you use your cell phone. Or maybe you are no longer allowed access to the press. They might ask you a question and you might get confused.

Do you support that candidate who, in a fit of cowardice, embarrasses the elderly woman who raised him, and who quipped that babies are punishment? But, back to Obama chumming with a terrorist . . .

As opposed to thinking Czheckoslovakia is still a country.

As opposed to not knowing that Russia has a veto on the security counsel?

What? What the hell is that supposed to mean. Is it supposed to counter the fact that gramps mcsame doesn't know a country hasn't been around for a while?

Using the term Checkoslovakia is one of habit for many folks, just like Myanmar and Burma or a number of other nations that have split up and/or changed names. But calling on the UN to resolve the Russian invasion of Georgia shows a lack of understanding of the UN. Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council would automatically veto anything that would seek to reign it in. To not know that is to not be ready for the position of POTUS. I can bring up many other examples but that's just the most recent. I know it matters not in the least to the Obamamanics but perhaps it will give others pause...

They might ask you a question and you might get confused.

Yeah, after you've been to, "57 or 58 states," it's easy to get confused... This makes me wonder where he went to school. Things that make ya say, "Hmmmmm."

waynester, I don't get how following International Law (notice the caps) means you do not understand International Law. By International Law, something the US, Georgia, Russia and most other member countries are bound to, that is what you do. A country takes disputes to the UN. Do you advocate illegal invasions or perhaps a nuclear war to solve the crisis?

Do you forget all the US vetoes in the UN. Perhaps countries should have started ignoring the UN and International Law long ago because of the consistent use of the veto by the US.

What logic system allows you to make the determination that Obama doesn't understand the UN because he agrees that acceptable methods of problem resolution should be used? It's the way of the world.

What is so charming about making bellicose statements and threats that cannot be backed up by any action. Even the President of Georgia realized that crash mccain was writing checks he couldn't cash.

My parents taught me to seek out people with differing opinions and exploit their intellect. I have taught my daughter the same. Only God knows the people I have spent countless hours with over the years arguing differing worldviews through the long hours of the night and wee hours of the early morning. Sometimes waking up with a massive hangover from the booze we shared and other times from the conflicting ideas. Many of those former acquaintances have become dear friends even though their outlooks on life can still give me migraines. My parents also taught me, and I again taught my daughter not to judge others based on who we might perceive them to be based on their covers but to spend a little time reading what we can find written in between those covers and even in between the lines. It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. I contend that life makes strange bedfellows and that's why life is grand. Selfishness abhors variance of type, unselfishness acquiesces in it, learns from it.

Both parties are the same ,they just take different lanes to get to the same major highway......Your Wallet............

Great comment but you might want to skip the bold, the words hold plenty of power on their own!

Do you think it's appropriate for a seeder to use an infammatory or inaccurate headline from a left-leaning website such as thinkprogress? Afer all, the seeder didn't write it. I see this all the time on NV and complaints so far as I've seen have gone un acted upon. The other day someone seeded an item from thinkprogress about an op-ed in the NYT by a conservative and the headline breathlessly announced that the "Neo-cons Call for War" the op-ed called for no such thing but I don't remember any of you complaining, no it was just us right of center types and nothing was done. Maybe a little consistency and intellectual honesty would be appropriate here but it' probably too much to ask.

Afer all, the seeder didn't write it.

It's more of a gray area, Waynester, but in those cases, the seeder is simply pointing out what other media are reporting or opinions they are holding in their editorials. I still have issues with it, though, and it has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on how inflammatory it is. The test that is typically applied to the media is the one of free speech does not mean that it's OK to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre'.

In this particular case, it's beyond the pale, as the seeder made up their own misleading out of whole cloth. The CoH clearly applies.

Maybe a little consistency and intellectual honesty would be appropriate here but it' probably too much to ask.

No it's not, and you're wrong. Just recently I worked to have a seed's headline changed here, because it was misleading.

On a 'democratic' seed.

Some of us actually still believe in journalistic principles like accuracy and objectivity, and will strive to ensure they're upheld, on a non-partisan basis.

So, you're just demonstrably, provably wrong.

So, you're just demonstrably, provably wrong

Glad to hear it; though I was commenting based on my admittedly limited experience and said so.
This is one of those things I wouldn't mind being wrong about.
I seeded the same article, and got almost no traffic. But then again I headlined it accurately, though not gracefully: "Is the University of Illinois Covering Up Links Between 60s Terrorists and Barack Obama?" It sounds like a s/v disagreement but it's not.
I got 5 votes and 3 comments. Oh well

The test that is typically applied to the media is the one of free speech does not mean that it's OK to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre'.

That has nothing to do with this issue; that refers to the government restriction of free speech i.e., when is speech illegal. This is policy set forth by Newsvine which I hope is not an agency of the Government.

Right. That's why I said 'the media', and not Newsvine.

Free speech in the media and elsewhere is guaranteed constitutionally -- to a point -- but it is not necessarily guaranteed by the media channels.

I think we all agree on that.

"from a left-leaning website such as thinkprogress?"

lol, many on the other side use very questionable sources as well.

but it is not necessarily guaranteed by the media channels.

Sure, I agree
That's equating the right of free speech to a right to be heard, which doesn't exist.

Waynester-

Yes, the free press means the right to print anything, not to monopolize the limited airwaves.

The Germans learned this lesson when the international corporations financed Hitler's propaganda, to counteract the populist movements. That's why they now have equal access to TV and radio broadcasts, for parties that attained 5%+ in the previous election.

Wrong.
Freedom of the press doesn't include the right to libel or the right to incite violence. It also doesn't mean the government should force broadcasters to air this or that point of view. Nor does it force the citizens to fund any newspaper, periodical or broadcast (except PBS and NPR of course)

To add: The international corporations are not evil. They just represent the interest of their share holders. There's nothing wrong with that, until their interest in profits become confused with national policy & wars are started (falsely) in the name of national interest.

Good. I'm glad the CoH has its eye on this article. Maybe that will help to have its misleading, inaccurate and partisan headline changed, since unlike the author of another thread I was on lately, the seeder in this case has rudely refused to even moderate his thread, never mind change the partisan, incorrect headline.

This is becoming very irritating.

The CoH Militia

Sounds Stalinesque, but what would you expect?

If the CoH Militia targets you is it like being named "The Worst Person in the World" by KO? A badge of honor?

Good. I'm glad the CoH has its eye on this article.

Completely missing the point of PC's post but probably on purpose.