Palin: Obama Is ‘Palling Around With Terrorists’

reply to post by jsobecky


I have checked it out. I posted a link to the story that covered it in this thread in response to other comments you made. The story itself featured the link that you referenced. BarackBook, is a fictitious Facebook site, it is a concerted effort by the RNC to smear Obama with guilty by association tactics. That's all it is. Zero credibility.

The whole thing is fake and misleading. All of the entries are by RNC staffers twisting facts to make them appear as if those who have come into contact with Obama, however briefly, are friends of Obama.

Again, zero credibility.

And zero credit to you for hijacking and twisting a point I made.

The fact that the very loose connection to Ayers is still getting press is astounding. I would put it like this to the membership of ATS: No one here is eligible for the Presidency on the same grounds then. I'm sure if it was discovered that you were a member of a site like this, you would be 'associating with subversives', and due to your membership to such a 'subversive' web site, you are unamerican by association. Chew on that for a while and see how it tastes.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Sorry. On-topic. Compare and contrast is a useful device in any argument. Maybe you forgot that.

reply to post by Areal51

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by jsobecky

 

I have checked it out. I posted a link to the story that covered it in this thread in response to other comments you made. The story itself featured the link that you referenced. BarackBook, is a fictitious Facebook site, it is a concerted effort by the RNC to smear Obama with guilty by association tactics. That's all it is. Zero credibility.

Look at the sources in the link. They are very credible. If you can disprove any of the statements in there, I'd like to hear it.

And zero credit to you for hijacking and twisting a point I made.

What did I hijack and twist? Please explain.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by jsobecky]

Food for thought and important details from, William C. Ibershof, the lead prosecutor of Weathermen.

To the Editor:

Re “Politics of Attack” (editorial, Oct. 8) and “Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths” (front page, Oct. 4):

As the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972), I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.

Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.

Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.

I do take issue with the statement in your news article that the Weathermen indictment was dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.

William C. Ibershof

Mill Valley, Calif., Oct. 8, 2008

Letter to the Editor: Prosecuting Weathermen

Even the lead prosecutor to the Weathermen thinks that the garbage surrounding the link of Obama to Ayers is nonsense. Most likely because Obama didn't know Ayers when the prosecutor knew Ayers.

reply to post by jsobecky


There you go again asking for proof.

BarackBook's existence is not to inform. It's primary function is to mislead by twisting the perception of facts previous to referencing to them.

Your primary reason for posting the link to BarackBook is portray it as a site that is credible. It's not a credible site because it fictionalizes who Barack Obama's friends are. As I said before, RNC staffers write those entries as if they were written by people who are actual friends of Barack Obama. The site is fictitious and misleading because of those facts. By the RNC's own admission the site is fictitious.

Prove the RNC wrong.

reply to post by Areal51


Wow, great find.

I think he sums it up perfectly, and considering the source, hopefully will put an end to this "6 degrees of desperation" (sorry for the Daily Show buzzword but I loved that).

reply to post by Areal51

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by jsobecky

 

There you go again asking for proof.

I know. Don't you like it?

BarackBook's existence is not to inform. It's primary function is to mislead by twisting the perception of facts previous to referencing to them.

Forget BarackBook. Look at the sources inside the link. They are very credible, yet you refuse to address that point.

If I list all those sources separately, would that make them more or less credible? No, it wouldn't. So your argument is pointless.

Once again, look at the sources and forget the link. Pretend they were posted in the Daily Kos. Would that make them more believable?

reply to post by jsobecky


There proof is right here:

Barackbook

Republican National Committee |310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003 p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e: [email protected]

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee.

Copyright 2008 Republican National Committee BarackBook.com is a parody of Facebook.com

Right on the bottom of the page.

Not saying it invalidates all of the information, but it is a Republican smear site.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


His campaign is starting to reek like a frat house party before a competitive football competition.

I like McCain on a personal level, but not lately, because he is dropping to lower levels.

I don't blame their campain for bringing up the former ties but. What I do have a problem with is chanting terrorist. This is downright creepy.

They will start accusing anyone of being a terrorist before they whisk them off to concentration camps. Terrorist or communist, I am sure they started the same. Someone making an accusation of the other.

Creepy...and familiar.

ANd a bit of a stretch too I might add.

reply to post by Sublime620


Once again, disprove any of the sources at this link:

www.barackbook.com...

Would they be more or less invalid if posted in the Daily Kos?

You are objecting to *who* posted the sources, when you should be looking at the sources themselves.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by jsobecky]

reply to post by jsobecky


What do you want me to disprove? I'll disprove yours, if you disprove mine:

• Obama did not take part of or even know Ayers in the days in question.
  
  
• Ayers is now an upstanding citizen who teaches at a University.
  
  
• Ayers no longer takes part in any of his previous hobbies.
  
  
• There is no evidence, or reason to believe, that Obama agrees with or shares Ayers ideology from 40+ years ago.

On a side note, it looks like there is a rebuttal on the way:

McCainBook

Should be just as dumb and unimportant as the Barrack site. But hey, the public loves mudslinging, which is why I gave up blaming the press. The public is the reason elections are a joke, not the press and not the candidates.

reply to post by jsobecky

I get to go first....

"From 1995 To 1999, [Barack Obama] Led An Education Foundation Called The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), And Remained On The Board Until 2001. … The CAC Was The Brainchild Of Bill Ayers…"

Obama SAT on a board with Bill Ayres. It was the "brainchild" of The Annenberg Challenge. Funded by a CONSERVATIVE.

That was a OP-ED piece they were quoting.

reply to post by jsobecky

How about this, jsobecky, prove that the sources the RNC's BarackBook links to are true?

Maybe now you understand how ridiculous your demands are.

And, no, I didn't refuse anything. You are now asking a different question. Further, I didn't address the question of facts, I addressed the question of BarackBook and your referral to the site as if it were a credible site.

Only now do you ask something different. If you are demanding that I disprove, then I demand that you prove. I'll exchange false facts for your true facts. How's that for Christmas?

Originally posted by Sublime620
Ayers no longer takes part in any of his previous hobbies.

Um .. just gotta say ... conspiracies in fedeal crimes, bombing the pentagon, bombing police stations, plotting to murder innocent Americans, bombing and destroying public and private property isn't a 'HOBBY'.

Those are crimes.

Or are you saying that Ayers had a hobby of committing crimes??

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by jsobecky

 

I get to go first....

"From 1995 To 1999, [Barack Obama] Led An Education Foundation Called The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), And Remained On The Board Until 2001. … The CAC Was The Brainchild Of Bill Ayers…"

Obama SAT on a board with Bill Ayres. It was the "brainchild" of The Annenberg Challenge. Funded by a CONSERVATIVE.

That was a OP-ED piece they were quoting.

I'm not saying the Annenbergs are terrorists or sympathizers, but, SO WHAT?

There are terrorists with conservative values, too.

Your point is moot.

reply to post by Areal51


Please refer to this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No other discussion is necessary.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Doesn't seem like G. Gordon Liddy is doing any of the same anymore, does it? But this is not really about Ayers or Liddy, is it? It's about using guilty by association tactics -- which of course, is a logical fallacy unto itself.

So, why don't we stop defending Ayers and Liddy and focus on why folks are buying a fallacious argument put forth by the McCain-Palin campaign.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Yeah, I chose that word more as a joke.

I guess he did have a "hobby" of taking things too far, to the point of being a crazy loon, who was a danger to society as a whole.

Nothing good about that.

reply to post by jsobecky


Like I said, prove that they are true. Go out investigate and substantiate that the facts are true. Verify that the consequence of those facts have direct significance to Barack Obama as someone who "pals around with terrorists".

Show that you understand that demand.

No retreat, no surrender.