PDA

View Full Version : Obamedia exposed as partisan hacks. Again.



LWW
01-08-2012, 06:00 AM
The olde school media is nothing but an American PRAVDA. (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/07/stephanopoulos-struggles-with-fairness-during-nh-debate/)

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 12:00 PM
Complete BS from you and this fifth-grader media critic.

All cited questions were fair, and there were indeed substantive reasons behind them.

Stephanopoulis wasn't known as an Obama shill, but as a Clinton shill, which title he quickly lost in favor of 'Judas Maximus,' as his memoir of his Clinton service seemed harsh and shrill, and he was actually the first person in the media to raise a likely impeachment in the Lewinsky matter.

In the meantime, he has been carefully neutral in the main, and is not any kind of posterboy for partisan hackery. Certainly, on this thin suggested evidence, there is no showing of that here.

The author lets Romney say that there is no prospect of states outlawing contraception, and nobody's advocating it, so it's a moot question?

Wrong on both counts, as Connecticut had that exact law in effect until the Griswald v CT ruling, AND former Sen. Santorum has now gone on record supporting the rights of states (and presumably, advocating them) to outlaw contraception. Which he considers a deadly evil stalking the land.

Can you do no better than these failed examples?

The author complains that George used the 'some say' formulation as to stating the NET jobs created/lost is being ignored by Romney's camp (in favor of just mentioning the plus side, ignoring the lost side), and didn't cite any expert raising the question?

That is true, evidently from the transcribed comments, and that would be a problem had George been LYING about the 'some say' position, or failing to mention that any such people saying that thing were demonstrably crazed (thinking Pam Geller or Oirly Taitz in other contexts).

However, not only is George not making this up, but the persons to whom he's referring make a serious case for their query. There has been no 'showing of their homework' from the Romney camp for their claims that this is a net figure of jobs created less the number of jobs destroyed, and it is essentially part of the media job to probe such unsupported and baldly stated figures which have no credible numbers shown to back up the claims.

Frankly, the Fox debate figures also asked fairly tough, and probably, tougher questions than did George. Are they partisan hacks FOR OBAMA, in your view?

LWW
01-08-2012, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All cited questions were fair, and there were indeed substantive reasons behind them.</div></div>

Nobody questioned that they were fair questions, the point was that they were questions they would never ask of dear leader.

LWW
01-08-2012, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, the Fox debate figures also asked fairly tough, and probably, tougher questions than did George. Are they partisan hacks FOR OBAMA, in your view? </div></div>

How do you "GET IT" without ever actually getting it?

FOX indeed asks hard questions ... of everyone, which explains why in 2008 the demokrooks lacked the testicular/ovarian fortitude to have a debate carried on FOX.

OTOH ... they lobbed softballs to the point that even SNL was making fun of how the bowed at the feet of dear leader.

Thanks for making my point.

LWW
01-08-2012, 01:16 PM
Since you are stuck in "DENIAL" mode:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the sound of one voice debating? We may find out this fall.

Yesterday, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson became the latest Democratic presidential candidates to decide that they will not participate in this fall's Fox News Channel debate, which is co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus.

According to the AP article:
The debate exodus began two months ago when John Edwards became the first candidate to announce that he would not attend the Sept. 23 debate in Detroit. A week later, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama announced they also would not participate.</div></div>

Demokrooks acting like coowards. Again. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500486_162-2870925-500486.html)

LWW
01-08-2012, 01:22 PM
Meanwhile, how did the Obamedia grill the demokrook candidates in the last debates:

Questionss staged and rehearesed! (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2007/11/cnn-pre-planned-censored-every-question-at-dem-debate/)

LWW
01-08-2012, 01:26 PM
That must be an aberration you say?

From the 2004 debates: (http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21719/)

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>“Which of the other candidates would you party with?”

“Should Grady Little have replaced Pedro Martinez against the Yankees?”

"Do you prefer PC or Mac?"</span>

Planted question after planted question ... while marketing the debates to the rubes and hicks as legitimate questions from the crowd members selected at random.

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Presidential campaign issue

Obama's contacts with Ayers had been public knowledge in Chicago for years.[22] British writer Peter Hitchens wrote about Ayers in the Daily Mail in early February, 2008.[22][23][24] The connection was then picked up by blogs and newspapers in the United States, including in the liberal Huffington Post.[25]
[edit]

Primary debates

Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz has written that the connection between the two Chicagoans was "all but ignored by the news media, other than Fox" until it was raised in a primary debate.[26]

At that Democratic Party primary debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>moderator George Stephanopoulos questioned Obama about his association with Ayers (after conservative commentator Sean Hannity suggested the question the day before)</span>.[27] Stephanopoulos asked the candidate: "Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"[18] </div></div>

To refresh memories, George had been interviewed by Sean Hannity the day before, and asked him what topics he ought to bring up in the impending primary debate, scheduled for the next day. Hannity suggested this Bill Ayer issue, and George asked the question the next day.

Showing he was then, as always, in bed with the Obama candidacy, according to you. BY TAKING A SEAN HANNITY QUESTION INTO THE DEBATE.

Similarly, in other interviews, George pushed Obama hard on how he could say the individual mandate penalty payment wasn't actually a tax. He went so far as to say he'd looked up tax in the dictionary, and the penalty seemed to be exactly that.

Proving again how much a tool he is for Obama, right? Sheesh!

LWW
01-08-2012, 04:11 PM
I knew you would walk into that.

Thanks for confessing that the Obamedia only tossed that softball up after being humiliated over their cowardice to do so on national TV.

BTW ... why didn't you link to George's scathing question?

FWIW, we both know why:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But first, a follow up on this issue, general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you were “friendly.” Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

BARACK OBAMA: The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Which was followed by no follow up question by George.

Oh ... FTR ... it sent Keith O into a rant about how George was playing dirty.

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/04/16/stephanopoulos-quizzes-obama-relationship-member-terrorist-group)

LEAPING LIZARDS! (http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/04/2008-04-16-MSNBC-CWOshorter.mp3)

Qtec
01-08-2012, 04:40 PM
link (http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/clarifying-the-facts-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Smith’s angle is captured in the Times headline: “No regrets for a love of explosives” (September 11, 2001). She and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life. I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense. I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly I wrote and spoke about the export of violence and the government’s love affair with bombs. Just as clearly Dinitia Smith was interested in her journalistic angle and not the truth. <u>This is not a question of being misunderstood or “taken out of context,” but of deliberate distortion.</u> </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-08-2012, 05:00 PM
Still confused by the concept of staying on topic I see?

Or, as we all know to be the real motivation, are you again lamely attempting to divert the topic away from the corruption of the leftist Obamedia.

I suppose you dare not bite the hand that spoon feeds you.

Qtec
01-08-2012, 05:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” </div></div>

Just correcting that false statement from your post.

Q

LWW
01-08-2012, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” </div></div>

Just correcting that false statement from your post.

Q </div></div>

Really?

Are you that duped that you believe this to be false?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.

''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''

But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked.

''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. ''It's true as I remember it.''

Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted.

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''

He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.

In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.

Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

''I don't think you can understand a single thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War,'' he said, and the fact that ''the enduring scar of racism was fully in flower.'' Mr. Ayers pointed to Bob Kerrey, former Democratic Senator from Nebraska, who has admitted leading a raid in 1969 in which Vietnamese women and children were killed. ''He committed an act of terrorism,'' Mr. Ayers said. ''I didn't kill innocent people.''

Mr. Ayers has always been known as a ''rich kid radical.'' His father, Thomas, now 86, was chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. When someone mentions his father's prominence, Mr. Ayers is quick to say that his father did not become wealthy until the son was a teenager. He says that he got some of his interest in social activism from his father. He notes that his father promoted racial equality in Chicago and was acceptable as a mediator to Mayor Richard Daley and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1966 when King marched in Cicero, Ill., to protest housing segregation.

All in all, Mr. Ayers had ''a golden childhood,'' he said, though he did have a love affair with explosives. On July 4, he writes, ''my brothers and I loved everything about the wild displays of noise and color, the flares, the surprising candle bombs, but we trembled mostly for the Big Ones, the loud concussions.''

The love affair seems to have continued into adulthood. Even today, he finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,'' he writes.

He attended Lake Forest Academy in Lake Forest, Ill., then the University of Michigan but dropped out to join Students for a Democratic Society.

In 1967 he met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts. In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms. Dohrn told an S.D.S. audience: ''Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''

In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''

Ms. Dohrn, Mr. Ayers and others eventually broke with S.D.S. to form the more radical Weathermen, and in 1969 Ms. Dohrn was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer during the Days of Rage protests against the trial of the Chicago Eight -- antiwar militants accused of conspiracy to incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

In 1970 came the town house explosion in Greenwich Village. Ms. Dohrn failed to appear in court in the Days of Rage case, and she and Mr. Ayers went underground, though there were no charges against Mr. Ayers. Later that spring the couple were indicted along with others in Federal Court for crossing state lines to incite a riot during the Days of Rage, and following that for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings.'' Those charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

During his fugitive years, Mr. Ayers said, he lived in 15 states, taking names of dead babies in cemeteries who were born in the same year as he. He describes the typical safe house: there were usually books by Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara's picture in the bedroom; fermented Vietnamese fish sauce in the refrigerator, and live sourdough starter donated by a Native American that was reputed to have passed from hand to hand over a century.

He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.

''Fugitive Days'' does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching ''Underground,'' Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was ''embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,'' he writes. ''The rigidity and the narcissism.''

In the mid-1970's the Weathermen began quarreling. One faction, including Ms. Boudin, wanted to join the Black Liberation Army. Others, including Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers, favored surrendering. Ms. Boudin and Ms. Dohrn had had an intense friendship but broke apart. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn were purged from the group.

Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers had a son, Zayd, in 1977. After the birth of Malik, in 1980, they decided to surface. Ms. Dohrn pleaded guilty to the original Days of Rage charge, received three years probation and was fined $1,500. The Federal charges against Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn had already been dropped.

Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn tried to persuade Ms. Boudin to surrender because she was pregnant. But she refused, and went on to participate in the Brink's robbery. When she was arrested, Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers volunteered to care for Chesa, then 14 months old, and became his legal guardians.

A few months later Ms. Dohrn was called to testify about the robbery. Ms. Dohrn had not seen Ms. Boudin for a year, she said, and knew nothing of it. Ms. Dohrn was asked to give a handwriting sample, and refused, she said, because the F.B.I. already had one in its possession. ''I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive,'' she said. For refusing to testify, she was jailed for seven months, and she and Mr. Ayers married during a furlough.

Once again, Chesa was without a mother. ''It was one of the hardest things I did,'' said Ms. Dohrn of going to jail.

In the interview, Mr. Ayers called Chesa ''a very damaged kid.'' ''He had real serious emotional problems,'' he said. But after extensive therapy, ''became a brilliant and wonderful human being.'' .

After the couple surfaced, Ms. Dohrn tried to practice law, taking the bar exam in New York. But she was turned down by the Bar Association's character committee because of her political activities.

Ms. Dohrn said she was aware of the contradictions between her radical past and the comforts of her present existence. ''This is where we raised our kids and are taking care of our aging parents,'' she said. ''We could live much more simply, and well we might.''

And as for settling into marriage after efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, ''You're always trying to balance your understanding of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.''

''Happily for me, Billy keeps me laughing, he keeps me growing,'' she said.

Mr. Ayers said he had some of the same conflicts about marriage. ''We have to learn how to be committed,'' he said, ''and hold out the possibility of endless reinventions.''

As Mr. Ayers mellows into middle age, he finds himself thinking about truth and reconciliation, he said. He would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission about Vietnam, he said, like South Africa's. He can imagine Mr. Kerrey and Ms. Boudin taking part.

And if there were another Vietnam, he is asked, would he participate again in the Weathermen bombings?

By way of an answer, Mr. Ayers quoted from ''The Cure at Troy,'' Seamus Heaney's retelling of Sophocles' ''Philoctetes:'' '' 'Human beings suffer,/ They torture one another./ They get hurt and get hard.' ''

He continued to recite:

History says, Don't hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up

And hope and history rhyme.

Thinking back on his life , Mr. Ayers said, ''I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire. And hope and history rhymed.'' </div></div>

My condolences on the death of yet another of yoyr beloved myths. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=all)

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 05:31 PM
The author complains that George used the 'some say' formulation as to stating the NET jobs created/lost is being ignored by Romney's camp (in favor of just mentioning the plus side, ignoring the lost side), and didn't cite any expert raising the question?

Actually, George was QUOTING THE ROMNEY SPOKESMAN.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post finally pressed the Romney campaign on this. And Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom gave Kessler this ...

Fehrnstrom says the 100,000 figure stems from the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino's (7,900 jobs).

This tally obviously does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved -- and are based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain. (Indeed, Romney made his comments in response to a former employee of American Pad & Paper Co. who says he lost his job after Bain Capital took it private.)

So when pressed Romney spokesman said it's the gains of three companies -- not the losses. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-08-2012, 05:38 PM
So now, you attest to your belief that the news business, and the NY Times in particular, never misquotes anyone, even when that person alleges he was misquoted?

Sure, you must be right, because what are the odds? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

And the fact that Ayers NEVER SET ANY BOMBS???

Oh, my! (Which might account for his lack of regret for 'setting' them?)

Qtec
01-08-2012, 07:04 PM
First sentence.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' </div></div>

Ayers has already condemned this. I guess you missed it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Smith’s angle is captured in the Times headline: “No regrets for a love of explosives” (September 11, 2001). She and I spoke a lot about regrets, about loss, about attempts to account for one’s life.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> I never said I had any love for explosives, and anyone who knows me found that headline sensationalistic nonsense.</span> I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>I told her that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, <span style="color: #3333FF">in fact we didn’t do enough to stop the war. </span> </span></div></div>

See the difference? No bombs mentioned in that sentence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly I wrote and spoke about the export of violence and the government’s love affair with bombs. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just as clearly Dinitia Smith <u>was interested in her journalistic angle and not the truth.</u> This is not a question of being misunderstood or “taken out of context,” <u>but of deliberate distortion.</u></span> </div></div>

Deliberate distortion. Note that those two quotes do not appear anywhere in the article in any context.

Its totally pointless to link to a story that Ayers has said was a distortion of what he said.

Q

LWW
01-09-2012, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the fact that Ayers NEVER SET ANY BOMBS???

Oh, my! (Which might account for his lack of regret for 'setting' them?) </div></div>

“Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country”
-Bill Ayers-

Again, you will make excuses for anyone that supports dear leader, and the party's, agenda.

Sad, so sad.

Soflasnapper
01-09-2012, 12:46 PM
You mendaciously assert that any corrections offered to your errors are done for reasons other than truth-telling. You are wrong. But I repeat myself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices.... We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.</span>[40]

</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Statements made in 2001
Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'</span>"[30] In the months before Ayers' memoir was published on September 10, 2001, the author gave numerous interviews with newspaper and magazine writers in which he defended his overall history of radical words and actions. Some of the resulting articles were written before the September 11 attacks and appeared immediately after, including one often-noted article in The New York Times, and another in the Chicago Tribune. Numerous observations were made in the media comparing the statements Ayers was making about his own past just as a dramatic terrorist incident shocked the public.

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[31] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[29]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Ayers protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."</span>[32] In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" <span style='font-size: 14pt'>he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[33] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[33][34]</span>

In a November 2008 interview with The New Yorker, Ayers said that he had not meant to imply that he wished he and the Weathermen had committed further acts of violence. Instead, he said, “I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more shit.” <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.” He also stated, "While we did claim several extreme acts, they were acts of extreme radicalism against property,” and “We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves.”</span>[35]
The interviewer also quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.' "[29] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."[4]
</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."[36]</span>

[edit]Views on his past expressed since 2001

Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied:[37] "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." On September 9, 2008, journalist Jake Tapper reported on the comic strip in Ayers' blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"[38][39]
In an op-ed piece in 2008, Ayers gave this assessment of his actions:

The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated.[40]

He also reiterated his rebuttal to the charge of terrorism:

The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices.... We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.[40]
[edit]</div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-09-2012, 01:16 PM
Thanks for confessing that the Obamedia only tossed that softball up after being humiliated over their cowardice to do so on national TV.

What a bizarre assertion!

You think ABC viewers watch Fox? They do not, particularly, in any numbers, because Fox viewers tend to watch Fox, and only Fox, period.

So George would NOT have been HUMILIATED (to the people who matter to him, his national audience), nor was Hannity's recommendation of this question to George done in a humiliating fashion.

If Fox talkers had such power over other persons through humiliation, we'd see a lot more of this over the years, and we see no more of this at all, wouldn't you agree?

LWW
01-09-2012, 05:37 PM
If you accept Ayers as a reputable witness.

I don't.

By his own recent admission even:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.

''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''</span>

But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked.

''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>''It's true as I remember it.''</span></div></div>

Like most leftists, the "TRUTH" is whatever Mr Ayers needs it to be at the moment.

You need Mr Ayers' fairy tales to be "TRUTH" ... hence, to you they are.

Qtec
01-09-2012, 05:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country”
-Bill Ayers- </div></div>

Got a link for that?

Q

LWW
01-09-2012, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country”
-Bill Ayers- </div></div>

Got a link for that?

Q </div></div>

"FUGITIVE DAYS" by William Ayers.

Next ridiculous question?

Qtec
01-09-2012, 05:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1981 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz. </div></div>

link (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/26/david-horowitz-ayers-suing-to-speak/)

Horowitz is a hack who hates Ayers guts. Hardly a reliable source.

Q

Qtec
01-09-2012, 05:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1981 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in a New York Times article. </div></div>

Notice how those two separate quotes, taken out of context, have morphed into a single sentence?

Terrorist, cop killer Bill Ayers denied university honor; Faculty may appeal decision (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/terrorist-cop-killer-bill-ayers-denied-university-honor-faculty-may-appeal-decision/question-1265313/)

Q

LWW
01-10-2012, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1981 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz. </div></div>

link (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/26/david-horowitz-ayers-suing-to-speak/)

Horowitz is a hack who hates Ayers guts. Hardly a reliable source.

Q </div></div>

Dude ... Ayers closed his book with that line.

Don't you have some other terrorist you can look up to as a role model?