Never do Politics on the web.
You stand a better chance in your local bar.
Your gonna get a lot of shit for this one.....

#1 ) IN THE DEBATES , OBAMA WAS ASKED WHY THE TERRORISTS HATE US ( USA ) .
HE REPLIED THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FAILED POLICIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION .

WHILE I KNOW THE HAT BUSH AT ALL COSTS CROWD WAS CHEERING ,
THE TRUTH IS THAT ISLAM HAS BEEN AT ODDS WITH EVERYONE WHO
IS NOT MUSLEM FOR 1500 YEARS ! THAT 911 WAS IN THE PLANNING
STAGES BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE AND THE NUMEROUS SMALLER
ATTATCKS THEY HAD STAGED PRIOR TO THE BUSH PRESIDENCY WAS
GIVEN NO CONSIDERATION

ANYONE WHO IS THAT SHORTSIGHTED ON THIS HUGE INTERNATIONAL
PROBLEM WILL BE A FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER AND SHOULD NOT BE
IN THE OVAL OFFICE .

#2) IN THE LAS DEBATE , CHARLIE GIBSON FRAMED A QUESTION BY
CITING THAT THE CAPITOL GAINS TAX WAS RELATED OBVERSELY TO
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES IN . THAT WITHOUT EXCEPTION , WHENEVER THE CGT IS RAISED THE FEDERAL $$
GO DOWN AND WHENEVER THE CGT IS LOWERED , THE FEDERAL $$ GO UP .

SO WHY WOULD YOU RAISE THE CGT KNOWING THAT IT WILL LOWER THE FEDERAL $$ ?

OBAMA DIDN'T QUESTION THE PREMISE , HE JUST SAID THAT THIS
WOULD BE DONE TO EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR .

I AM PARAPHRASING THIS BUT THAT IS HOW IT WAS SAID .

NOW DOESN'T THAT SCARE THE WITTS OUT OF YOU WHEN HE COMES
RIGHT OUT AND SAID IN A NATIONAL DEBATE THAT HE WILL USE THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE HIS IDEA OF WHAT
SOCIETY SHOULD BE EVEN IF IT WILL COST THE GOVERNMENT MONEY TO DO IT ?

THIS IS SOCIAL ENGINEERING THROUGH TAXATION . TO PUNISH
ACHIEVEMENT AND REWARD NON ACHIEVMENT WILL SURELY BE THE
RUIN OF OUR NATION .

IF THAT IS NOT A COMMUNIST IDEAL THEN WHAT IN THE WORLD IS ?
_________________

RIMSPOKE wrote:

THIS IS SOCIAL ENGINEERING THROUGH TAXATION . TO PUNISH ACHIEVEMENT AND REWARD NON ACHIEVMENT WILL SURELY BE THE RUIN OF OUR NATION . IF THAT IS NOT A COMMUNIST IDEAL THEN WHAT IN THE WORLD IS ?

It's called social democracy. It means taking care of the poor and unfortunate ones so they don't lose hope. It has nothing to do with Marx or Stalin. Besides, how can paying taxes to "the greatest country in the world" be a punishment?
_________________
'71 2002ti
'73 3.0CSi

Keep on rolling in the free world!

[/quote]
It's called social democracy. It means taking care of the poor and unfortunate ones so they don't lose hope. It has nothing to do with Marx or Stalin. Besides, how can paying taxes to "the greatest country in the world" be a punishment?[/quote]

a perfect example of an arrogant european making judgements on american culture.

from my point of view, 'social democracy' is another way to say 'tyranny of the masses'. american political tradition was formulated by people escaping oppression by the majority- new england was colonized by folks wishing to practice religious freedom denied them in the old world. we cast aside all relics of serfdom and tell the manor "f**k you". it's called personal liberty.

personal responsibility follows from personal liberty. american tradition is that each person has the opportunity to make a successful life and those that don't are failures as people. sure, there are exceptions due to outside circumstances but we value what's called 'the protestant work ethic', a value based again on personal liberty. the nursemaiding of the 'poor and unfortunate ones' should be left to those who are soft hearted enough to care, not by coercion on all of us.

please explain how preventing 'lost hope' could possibly benefit me as a taxpayer. government entitlement is worse than heroin in destroying initiative.

of course european 'social democracy' is related to the theories of marx and engels. a basic premise of marxism is that government should serve to promote social and economic equality, especially in service to the 'poor and unfortunate'. btw, stalinism was way closer to fascism than pure marxian theory.

as for it being my privilege to pay these taxes, in support of the state agenda, well all i can say is that sounds like the austrian corporal talking.


robert w.

PLEASE GET YOUR BRAIN OFF THE SHELF .

It's called social democracy. It means taking care of the poor and unfortunate ones so they don't lose hope. It has nothing to do with Marx or Stalin. Besides, how can paying taxes to "the greatest country in the world" be a punishment?

IF INCREASING THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX WILL REDUCE THE FEDERAL
INCOME AS HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN , THEN THIS WILL
BELIEVE IT OR NOT , NOT HELP THE POOR .

WHAT IS SO TROUBLING ABOUT OBAMA's COMMENTS IS THAT HE WANTS TO INCREASE THE CGT ANYWAY TO BRING THE RICH DOWN & FOR NO OTHER REASON !

ONCE EVERYONE IS POOR THEN I GUESS , NO ONE WILL BE .
THIS IS GREAT UNTILL SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILLS
OR GO LOOKING FOR A JOB .

THANKS OBAMA , I WANTED TO HELP THE POOR BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO BE ONE OF THEM .
_________________

Waittaminnit. Aside from the "are you still beating your wife?" character of the debate questions, let's look at the facts:

(1) "Why do the terrorists hate America?" Not sure which "terrorists" you mean (there are lots of different agendas out there), but if you actually listen to and read what Bin Laden and his ilk say, they're pissed off about the presence of American bases in Saudi, the UAE, Bahrain and other spots in their countries. Their actions on this point are despicable, but their motives have nothing to do with "hating our freedom" or any other bullshit like that. Over the past century, the Muslim world has endured the occupation and expulsion of the French and British empires. They want the US to get out, too. If Saudi Arabia started building air bases in North Carolina, wouldn't you be pissed off? Maybe it's time we get the hell out and leave those people alone.

(2) Regarding Charlie Gibson, your choice of words is apt. He did indeed "frame" a question. Unfortunately, it wasn't really a question rather than an arguable point posing as a question. Obama's deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the question was not surprising, since the relationship of CGT and revenue is something that neither the left or the right can pin down. For example here is a discussion of the point from (right wing) The New Republic:

"My recollection was that Gibson’s premise was wrong, but I couldn’t remember the details of why. Fortunately, I know a few economists. Here’s one of them–Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute–with the story:

Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both score raising capital gains taxes as raising revenues. There is some behavioral response but much of that is timing and doesn’t affect the medium-to-long term revenue loss.

Note that the experience after the 1997 cut and the 2003 cut is not a meaningful way to assess the impact of capital gains tax cuts on revenues because so many things were happening simultaneously. The JCT score of the capital gains cut in 1997 was a few billion dollars annually. The 2003 cut was something like $5 billion annually. But capital gains revenues can go up or down by tens of billions annually. So it is hard to look at the noisy data and infer ex post the revenue impact of these changes.

Or, to put it more simply, Gibson’s logic was flawed."

There are dozens of other examples of both the right and left trying to get their heads around this tenuous issue, but here's another way to look at it: Capital gains accrue when an asset is sold. Except in a few specialized instances, people have a choice about when to sell an asset. If they know the capital gains tax rate will be going down as of a certain date, they are likely to sell assets AFTER that date rather than before it, in order to minimize the tax due. So the increase in revenues experienced once the capital gains tax rate goes down is largely due to the fact that more people are selling assets. Short answer: Charlie Gibson was technically correct, but his statement reflects an artifact.

In other words, Charlie Gibson took a very noisy and complex system, cherry picked a couple of data points, and used it to make his argument in an event where HE WASN’T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL!
_________________
MichaelP
BMW_CCA Blue Ridge Chapter
'71 1600 - Malaga
'71 2800CS - Black primer
'91 318i cabrio - Lagunengrun
http://www.crismanpetrus.us

you can parse the impact of CG tax policy all day long, but the effect has been historically that it indeed raises CG taxes collected, and by a wide measure.

But beyond that, why should the government determine who is allowed to be "rich" with tax policy. That point was raised, and so far Obama is firmly on the side of penalizing someone because they happen to be successful. Government policy should not make these kind of policy decisions, rather it should make sure the opportunity to become successful is available to all.

You want to know what a millionaire looks like? It's your next door neighbor who ran his own machine shop for 40 years, saved his money, lived a modest life, drives used cars like most of us, and now has $1.5MM in his retirement account, and a paid-for-house worth another $600k. This is the guy Obama thinks is "rich" and needs to be penalized.

It's so fucking condecending it makes me sick.
_________________
gwb72tii

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra

MichaelP wrote:

Waittaminnit. Aside from the "are you still beating your wife?" character of the debate questions, let's look at the facts: (1) "Why do the terrorists hate America?" Not sure which "terrorists" you mean (there are lots of different agendas out there), but if you actually listen to and read what Bin Laden and his ilk say, they're pissed off about the presence of American bases in Saudi, the UAE, Bahrain and other spots in their countries. Their actions on this point are despicable, but their motives have nothing to do with "hating our freedom" or any other bullshit like that. Over the past century, the Muslim world has endured the occupation and expulsion of the French and British empires. They want the US to get out, too. If Saudi Arabia started building air bases in North Carolina, wouldn't you be pissed off? Maybe it's time we get the hell out and leave those people alone. (2) Regarding Charlie Gibson, your choice of words is apt. He did indeed "frame" a question. Unfortunately, it wasn't really a question rather than an arguable point posing as a question. Obama's deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the question was not surprising, since the relationship of CGT and revenue is something that neither the left or the right can pin down. For example here is a discussion of the point from (right wing) The New Republic: "My recollection was that Gibson’s premise was wrong, but I couldn’t remember the details of why. Fortunately, I know a few economists. Here’s one of them–Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute–with the story: Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both score raising capital gains taxes as raising revenues. There is some behavioral response but much of that is timing and doesn’t affect the medium-to-long term revenue loss. Note that the experience after the 1997 cut and the 2003 cut is not a meaningful way to assess the impact of capital gains tax cuts on revenues because so many things were happening simultaneously. The JCT score of the capital gains cut in 1997 was a few billion dollars annually. The 2003 cut was something like $5 billion annually. But capital gains revenues can go up or down by tens of billions annually. So it is hard to look at the noisy data and infer ex post the revenue impact of these changes. Or, to put it more simply, Gibson’s logic was flawed." There are dozens of other examples of both the right and left trying to get their heads around this tenuous issue, but here's another way to look at it: Capital gains accrue when an asset is sold. Except in a few specialized instances, people have a choice about when to sell an asset. If they know the capital gains tax rate will be going down as of a certain date, they are likely to sell assets AFTER that date rather than before it, in order to minimize the tax due. So the increase in revenues experienced once the capital gains tax rate goes down is largely due to the fact that more people are selling assets. Short answer: Charlie Gibson was technically correct, but his statement reflects an artifact. In other words, Charlie Gibson took a very noisy and complex system, cherry picked a couple of data points, and used it to make his argument in an event where HE WASN’T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL!

You elitist. You gonna believe the economists? You probably think reducing the gas tax won't benefit anyone even though its been tried before and didn't benefit anyone (other than oil company stockholders). But, hey, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
_________________
“...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

-Winston Churchill

There's an old saying in my profession that if you laid all the economists in world head-to-feet, they still couldn't reach a conclusion.

Economics is an in-exact science at best, sort of like climate science.

It's always been puzzling to me why the frd gov't has always used static analysis to estimate the effects of tax policy.
_________________
gwb72tii

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra

2761377 wrote:

american tradition is that each person has the opportunity to make a successful life and those that don't are failures as people. sure, there are exceptions due to outside circumstances but we value what's called 'the protestant work ethic', a value based again on personal liberty. the nursemaiding of the 'poor and unfortunate ones' should be left to those who are soft hearted enough to care, not by coercion on all of us.



robert w.[/quote]

yo man that is straight bullshit. American tradition likes to make everyone believe that everyone has the opportunity to better their lives. The truth is, life is a race and too many people aren't even getting a chance to get to the starting line. Meanwhile people as fortunate as ourselves get massive head starts and aren't doing anything to help people less fortunate. We abandon complete segments of our society. I.E. 90's watts and Compton. Business and government weren't doing shit to help those people and in turn everything turned for the worst. Blood sets, crip sets, you name it. The government does have a responsibility to make sure everyone gets an equal start so that people can make a "successful" life. Whatever the hell that is.
_________________
needy and demanding 72 02

2761377 wrote:

It's called social democracy. It means taking care of the poor and unfortunate ones so they don't lose hope. It has nothing to do with Marx or Stalin. Besides, how can paying taxes to "the greatest country in the world" be a punishment? a perfect example of an arrogant european making judgements on american culture. from my point of view, 'social democracy' is another way to say 'tyranny of the masses'. american political tradition was formulated by people escaping oppression by the majority- new england was colonized by folks wishing to practice religious freedom denied them in the old world. we cast aside all relics of serfdom and tell the manor "f**k you". it's called personal liberty. personal responsibility follows from personal liberty. american tradition is that each person has the opportunity to make a successful life and those that don't are failures as people. sure, there are exceptions due to outside circumstances but we value what's called 'the protestant work ethic', a value based again on personal liberty. the nursemaiding of the 'poor and unfortunate ones' should be left to those who are soft hearted enough to care, not by coercion on all of us. please explain how preventing 'lost hope' could possibly benefit me as a taxpayer. government entitlement is worse than heroin in destroying initiative. of course european 'social democracy' is related to the theories of marx and engels. a basic premise of marxism is that government should serve to promote social and economic equality, especially in service to the 'poor and unfortunate'. btw, stalinism was way closer to fascism than pure marxian theory. as for it being my privilege to pay these taxes, in support of the state agenda, well all i can say is that sounds like the austrian corporal talking. robert w.

Thanks for calling me an arrogant European, but you're missing the point. There is a great distinction between social democracy and communism. Using tax money for the benefit of a people is something most European countries do. If you call that communist it's like calling a cop a fascist. We don't put people in gulags, or starve them by the millions. We are too soft-hearted (read: gay) to do a thing like that.

By the way I love these political threads on this board. They go all over the place! :)
_________________
'71 2002ti
'73 3.0CSi

Keep on rolling in the free world!

Awe did someone get their stimulus check today.

The Bush family has managed to do in 8 years what governments have not been able to do in life times.

For those of you who voted for him not once but twice you have to feel betrayed, unless you’re just fabulously wealthy or have a shit load of oil company stock.

I don't know why the same idiots on the board try to boost Bush up to tear down someone else. It's just the same old negative bullshit.

Bush has been the President for 8 years how are you going to compare his tragedies to a fucking house deal when he has dealt the whole country down the drain. You should bend over and take it some more. It truly is beyond me how some of you continue to try and defend the situation he has put us in. I can't believe this!
_________________
'75 Alpine Weiss I
'94 530iT Dinan
'66 Mustang Conv
'66 Mustang Coupe (Garage Queen)
'05 Mazda 3

TTyMiller wrote:

For those of you who voted for him not once but twice you have to feel betrayed

yes, that is a very good way to put it

nobody in this thread has defended bush, only point out a few of Obama's very large defects, which will be hammered home in the general election.

the democrats have backed themselves in a corner. if they don't nominate Obama, they're racists and will lose a large block of the black vote for a long time.

this election was supposed to be a slam dunk for the left.
_________________
gwb72tii

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra

I don't see how anyone can say he's worse than Bush, it simply can not be stated with any amount of validity.

1. Sweetheart deal on a house. I'm sure many people in his position get them. He and his wife just paid off their school loans 3years ago.

2. The minister. Well this just plays on the fear of white folks that you might get a black militant in the white house. Your not voting for that kookwho was paid by the clintons anyway. We know this man is not of that cloth; besides the whites in this country will still be the status quo.

3.The old radicals. That was a sign of the times and he was 8 years old. The Catholic church has insurance policies for their priests in case the have sex with a child and gets sued. The insurance company pays not the church. The church has a lot of friends and that policy keeps going up.
_________________
'75 Alpine Weiss I
'94 530iT Dinan
'66 Mustang Conv
'66 Mustang Coupe (Garage Queen)
'05 Mazda 3

TTyMiller wrote:

I don't see how anyone can say he's worse than Bush, it simply can not be stated with any amount of validity. 1. Sweetheart deal on a house. I'm sure many people in his position get them. He and his wife just paid off their school loans 3years ago. 2. The minister. Well this just plays on the fear of white folks that you might get a black militant in the white house. Your not voting for that kookwho was paid by the clintons anyway. We know this man is not of that cloth; besides the whites in this country will still be the status quo. 3.The old radicals. That was a sign of the times and he was 8 years old. The Catholic church has insurance policies for their priests in case the have sex with a child and gets sued. The insurance company pays not the church. The church has a lot of friends and that policy keeps going up.

Obama keeps saying the election is about us, not him. Well, that's not fair. A freshman senator from Illinois, you bet it's about him.

And WTF, do you know Ayers and the weather underground? these aren't some burned out flower children from the haight in SF. These folks murdered people who happened to disagree with them.

The issue is who he choses to call a friend as an adult when he presumably can make an adult decision. It's his choice, and it's perfectly ok to judge him on it. and so far he loses, don't you think?
_________________
gwb72tii

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra

I have to chime in with a wholehearted disagreement, GWB, on your statement that Obama is worse than Bush. It's simply not a reasonable premise since Obama has not even been elected, or served as president for 8 years (yet).

inkatouring wrote:

You elitist. You gonna believe the economists? You probably think reducing the gas tax won't benefit anyone even though its been tried before and didn't benefit anyone (other than oil company stockholders). But, hey, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

;) Y'know, I gotta find me a bubble. One of them shiny new ones with built-in fear and wedge issues.

And you're right - what do economists know? Political hacks and radio loudmouths know wayyy more about economics than a buncha longhairs who devote lifetimes to studying this stuff. It's all too inexact for me - or at least that what the TV tells me. I mean, the medical field hasn't figured out cancer, so I'm gonna stop listening to the doctors. And physics? Chemistry? Where are my superconducting trains? Why can't I travel at light speed yet? Screw 'em. It's all too inexact. Gimme those weapons though. Can't build enough invisible noo-cue-lar magic wands, er, I mean shields to defend us against.. against.. uh... science, er, Chuck Hagee or, no, I mean flag pins, no, wait, 100 years in Iraq, even a million years, no no, I mean foreclosure, and, and I mean what middle class?... And where the hell is my stimulus check? I gotta go stimulate Walmart, er, I mean China, no, I mean the economists, wait, I mean Exxonmobil...
_________________
MichaelP
BMW_CCA Blue Ridge Chapter
'71 1600 - Malaga
'71 2800CS - Black primer
'91 318i cabrio - Lagunengrun
http://www.crismanpetrus.us

[quote="MichaelP"]

inkatouring wrote:

And you're right - what do economists know? Political hacks and radio loudmouths know wayyy more about economics than a buncha longhairs who devote lifetimes to studying this stuff. It's all too inexact for me - or at least that what the TV tells me. I mean, the medical field hasn't figured out cancer, so I'm gonna stop listening to the doctors. And physics? Chemistry? Where are my superconducting trains? Why can't I travel at light speed yet? Screw 'em. It's all too inexact. Gimme those weapons though. Can't build enough invisible noo-cue-lar magic wands, er, I mean shields to defend us against.. against.. uh... science, er, Chuck Hagee or, no, I mean flag pins, no, wait, 100 years in Iraq, even a million years, no no, I mean foreclosure, and, and I mean what middle class?... And where the hell is my stimulus check? I gotta go stimulate Walmart, er, I mean China, no, I mean the economists, wait, I mean Exxonmobil...

touche', michael
how long did it take you to write this? LOL
_________________
gwb72tii

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra


Last edited by gwb72tii on 5-6-08 09:04; edited 1 time in total

gwb72tii wrote:

And WTF, do you know Ayers and the weather underground? these aren't some burned out flower children from the haight in SF. These folks murdered people who happened to disagree with them.

The Weather Underground didn't murder anyone. Like many groups in the late 1960s, they were a "movement." These movements were against the liberal war mongering of a$$-holes like Hubert Humphrey. Many radicals (like Mr. Ayers) of the era went on to become college professors to influence the next generation of free thinkers.

Myself, well, let's just say in 1968 I spent a lot of time on a college campus or two in Michigan. Also, I attended a major political party nominating convention in a windy city.

Delia
_________________
1973 2002tii
Inka (aka "Orange Julius")
VIN 2762756

1974 2002tii
Polaris (aka "Mae West")
VIN 2782824

BMW CCA member #1974

A-1 Imports Autoworks - San Rafael

www.oldschoolbmw.com

deliawolfe@gmail.com

[quote="gwb72tii"]

MichaelP wrote:

inkatouring wrote: And you're right - what do economists know? Political hacks and radio loudmouths know wayyy more about economics than a buncha longhairs who devote lifetimes to studying this stuff. It's all too inexact for me - or at least that what the TV tells me. I mean, the medical field hasn't figured out cancer, so I'm gonna stop listening to the doctors. And physics? Chemistry? Where are my superconducting trains? Why can't I travel at light speed yet? Screw 'em. It's all too inexact. Gimme those weapons though. Can't build enough invisible noo-cue-lar magic wands, er, I mean shields to defend us against.. against.. uh... science, er, Chuck Hagee or, no, I mean flag pins, no, wait, 100 years in Iraq, even a million years, no no, I mean foreclosure, and, and I mean what middle class?... And where the hell is my stimulus check? I gotta go stimulate Walmart, er, I mean China, no, I mean the economists, wait, I mean Exxonmobil... touche', josh how long did it take you to write this? LOL

That was Michael you quoted. As for Ayers, try reading up before you spew (hard, I know). He may not be a saint, but he wasn't the sinner you make him out to be either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers.

At the end of your life, you should hope to be able to say that you tried as hard as he did to make our society a better place.

And as for Obama and Ayers, who says they are "friends" (besides you)? Ayers held a fund raiser for Obama. I've held fund raisers in my humble little home for several candidates and I dare say only one could be called a friend and that is pretty big stretch as it is.

Now, if you want to start judging people by who supports them, lets look at who David Duke voted for. How about Abamhoff. Kenny Lay. There are people who support McCain that fucked this country several times over compared to Ayers.

But, if you'd rather spew RNC talking points and not think for yourself, that's fine with me.
_________________
“...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

-Winston Churchill

ok how about attempted murder and robbery that resulted in 3 deaths?
close enough?
i grew up 30 miles south of berkeley and sf in the south bay
i remember all that
ayers and his ilk were no romantic revolutionaries, just spoiled upper middle class kids of privilege who thought they could change the world through violent means. these are the friends of O, and he should be judged by the company he keeps. they have stated publicly they have no remorse for what they did. the fact they're professors is an indictment of our school system.

O choses where he goes, who he hangs with, and friends have said he's chummy with these people. you can't pick who supports you, but you can chose to not associate if you want. it's a matter of judgement.

IMHO
_________________
gwb72tii

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra

gwb72tii wrote:

ok how about attempted murder and robbery that resulted in 3 deaths? close enough? i grew up 30 miles south of berkeley and sf in the south bay i remember all that ayers and his ilk were no romantic revolutionaries, just spoiled upper middle class kids of privilege who thought they could change the world through violent means. these are the friends of O, and he should be judged by the company he keeps. they have stated publicly they have no remorse for what they did. the fact they're professors is an indictment of our school system. O choses where he goes, who he hangs with, and friends have said he's chummy with these people. you can't pick who supports you, but you can chose to not associate if you want. it's a matter of judgement. IMHO

30 miles south of SF and Berkeley, especially back then, was a world away. How do I know? Because I, at the very same time, was in San Francisco itself and personally knew many of the people in SDS and the Weather Underground (including a second cousin of mine). So, while you speak from ignorance, I do not.

So, you can try to lump everyone in one group and judge 100s or 1000s by the (misguided) actions of afew, Mr. McCarthy, but I know better. If you're half as smart as you think you are, you should, too.

Good night and good luck.
_________________
“...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

-Winston Churchill

gwb72tii wrote:

ok how about attempted murder and robbery that resulted in 3 deaths? close enough? i grew up 30 miles south of berkeley and sf in the south bay i remember all that ayers and his ilk were no romantic revolutionaries, just spoiled upper middle class kids of privilege who thought they could change the world through violent means. these are the friends of O, and he should be judged by the company he keeps. they have stated publicly they have no remorse for what they did. the fact they're professors is an indictment of our school system. IMHO

Ayers was convicted of no crime.

Some might suggest G. W. Bush's misdemeanor DUI was more egregious.

Delia
_________________
1973 2002tii
Inka (aka "Orange Julius")
VIN 2762756

1974 2002tii
Polaris (aka "Mae West")
VIN 2782824

BMW CCA member #1974

A-1 Imports Autoworks - San Rafael

www.oldschoolbmw.com

deliawolfe@gmail.com

AYERS FREELY ADMITTED TO THE CRIMES !

ISN'T THAT CONVICTING ENOUGH ?
_________________

MISSION ACOMPLISHED!
_________________
'75 Alpine Weiss I
'94 530iT Dinan
'66 Mustang Conv
'66 Mustang Coupe (Garage Queen)
'05 Mazda 3