Hannity "Worst Person" "runner-up" for failing to challenge suggestion that Obama has not "condemn[ed]" Ayers' actions
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Countdown, Keith Olbermann awarded Sean Hannity the "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for failing to challenge a guest's suggestion that Sen. Barack Obama has "not condemn[ed] the actions" of William Ayers. As Olbermann noted, "Hannity, of course, never pointed out to the victim that Obama did condemn them -- the words he used were 'deplore' and 'detestable.'"
On the April 29 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Fox News' Sean Hannity the "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for failing to challenge a guest's suggestion, as Media Matters for America documented, that Sen. Barack Obama has "not condemn[ed] the actions" of former Weather Underground member William Ayers. As Olbermann noted, "Hannity, of course, never pointed out to the victim that Obama did condemn them -- the words he used were 'deplore' and 'detestable.' " Instead of pointing out Obama's denunciation during the segment on the April 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, Hannity asserted that Obama "has a friendly relationship" with Ayers and asked, "Don't you think this should be a major issue in the campaign?"
Olbermann also stated: "Hannity again called Ayers a, quote, 'terrorist.' He also neglected to point out that all charges against Ayers were dropped and he was never convicted of anything, let alone terrorism."
From the April 29 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The runner-up: Sean Hannity of "Fixed News." With the Jeremiah Wright story having pretty much deflated, he's moved on to William Ayers, former member of the '60s and '70s radical group, Weather Underground, with whom Barack Obama once served on the board of a Chicago charity. One of the group's victims complained to Hannity that he can't understand why Obama would, quote, "not condemn the actions of people in the past" like Ayers.
Hannity, of course, never pointed out to the victim that Obama did condemn them -- the words he used were "deplore" and "detestable" -- as Hannity again called Ayers a, quote, "terrorist." He also neglected to point out that all charges against Ayers were dropped and he was never convicted of anything, let alone terrorism.
SOMEONE PINCH ME, I THINK I JUST READ THAT SUE AGREED WITH KEITH !!!
. . . love ya Sue :-)
I can't wait.
You can prove that Hannity is directly responsible for this, thus proving Matthews wrong. It wasn't a mainstream issue until Stephanopolous brought it up in the debate, and where did he get it from? Directly from Hannity's mouth. All verifiable, proven statements. Actually, I'm fairly certain more than a few of the "controversies" in this campaign season can be directly attributed to someone in the media.
Someone should do an investigative report on how the right-wing media is planting fake stories in an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2008 Election.
Dateline NBC should try asnd turn up every bit of dirt they can on Sean Hannity. 20/20 should do likewise to Rush Limbaugh. And Mike Wallace - do you feel like investigating your son, Chris???
Tommy- Worst Person in the World tonight "Senator Clinton , for appearing on Fixed Noise with Bill O"
Want any bets that this occurs?
Then Obama should have gotten one for being on with Fox's Chris Wallace.
I think we all know that KO is in the Obama camp, but I have noticed the disgusting Olbermann trying to play both sides lately.
Olbermann isn't stupid. When he thought Obama was the surefire nominee he could throw Hillary to the wolves, who cares? Now that she is more competitive he must tread more lightly because if she becomes the nominee, he has to put his arm around her then.
Haha. That's funny. Who's Amy Goodman?
It's all very weird anymore, these media/political alliances that were virtually unthinkable not too long ago.......what's a biased media watchdog site to do?
Hillary cozying up to Bill. Olbermann on MMFA's pooty list for his recent bashing of Hillary. HuffPo going after Hillary with a vengeance. Hannity and Rove sticking up for Hillary and going after her opponent. Coulter and Rush on Clinton's bandwagon. Rush and his "con" talkers dumping on the Republican nominee......
My head hurts.
But if you read alot of the partisan haters on here, they all say McCain is a right wing nut. Hard to figure out what is what.
Tommy,
You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.
"Hannity and Rove sticking up for Hillary and going after her opponent. Coulter and Rush on Clinton's bandwagon. "
That's very easy to explain. They want the race to keep going so that it keeps hurting the Democrats. Well, except Coulter, I don't even want to begin thinking about what's going on inside her head.
I mean, Operation Chaos is a very real thing. But, he could potentially get into big, big trouble for some of the stuff he has done.
But all in all, is it really that hard to believe that the Republicans are now backing Hillary in the Dem primary to bolster support for her and keep the race going as long as possible? I can guarantee if I have the political foresight to think that through, Rove definitely has the political foresight to think that through.
It does seem that the whole media has somehow fallen down the rabbit hole lately, hasn't it?
But alas, it makes for some of the best entertainment since pro wrestling.
Ugh, what a sad statement...
My head hurts.
It's probably pining for an original thought. The last time you had one, it died of loneliness.
"Unbelievable!! anybody else ever notice that?"--- thomp.steve9098
Anyone else ever NOT notice that?
I know I haven't, with the myriad of times I've tried to tell these people that the producers and higher-ups at MSNBC and GE wouldn't let that happen. It's basically like asking if O'Reilly would go after Hannity for his crazy mess of a show. You would think good corporate-loving red-blooded Americans would understand the basic tenets of "brand structuring."
So is KO just a hivemind, only saying what the corporate plutocrats want him to say? I didn't think he was so beholden to the corporate propaganda machine that way. Who would have thunk?
Okay, I'm kiddin a little. However, in my opinion, the passes given to his co-workers regarding the same kinds of comments that he pretends to be outraged over in his wpitw segments, make him look so phony.
Like yesterday's thread regarding KO naming rubin wpitw for comparing HC to Glenn Close. KO at length belabored how insipid and outrageous that comparison is. Yet on numerous occasions he has co-hosted shows with fellows (matthews) who have made the same sorts of comparisons. If he genuinely thought rubin's remarks so offensive and deplorable, it's hard to imagine that he'd so easily give matthews a pass on the same sorts of comments. In short, his outrage over what conversatives say on other networks looks so feigned when he allows his buddies to say the same sh!t without any rebuke
I don't really watch Kieth much, so I don't know for sure, but it must be awfully difficult to drum up genuine outrage every night.
In that respect I have to admire the amazing ability of Hannity, BO, Limbaugh and Savage to muster up genuine looking bitterness so effortlessly. If I didn't know better, I would think they might actually be onto something substantive. It isn't as easy as it looks.
How many of us have taken a stand against our employer's policies?
Very few would be my guess.
I have never bought that as an excuse. I doubt that GE, or NBC, or MSNBC has explicity told Olbermann to lay off the personalities on their networks for his irrelevant and schmaltzy WPITW awards. If their skin is that thin, they can't take a little ribbing from one of their own in Olbermann's little eye-popping segment of silliness that's just basically filler between commercials near the end of his program, then the powers that be in that corporation are a bunch on ninnies.
The reason, in my opinion, that Olbermann leaves out his coworkers and goes after his competitors is to stroke his own inflated ego in his elitist fashion, much like all the guests he interviews agree with his every word, and fawn over him like he is some lone liberal standard-bearer. These awards are just another way for him to look down his nose at those he despises politically, and he feels superior.
He isn't fooling most people.
Really? Ever worked in news? The producers have final say over the content of a piece, just like Editors have final say over what goes in a news story in a paper. Ultimately its the producers who hold the responsibility of what goes in what segment of the show.
Look, feign your outrage over KO's show all you want, it's not going to make his WPITW segments stop, nor is it going to stop MMfA from posting a thread when he draws from one of their previous threads. Then you and Jeter and Sue and Lyons will call him a hypocrite and Magnolia, TheRick, Nerzog and I will show you precisely why he won't go after Matthews and we'll do it all over and over and over.
If you have a problem with him not going after Matthews, let MSNBC know, and let them know often.
Sure, yours is possible. But I base mine on what I have seen on Keith's program, and the fact that he never, that I have ever seen, has anyone on who takes his arguments to task, or disagrees with him.....they are there to reinforce, not challenge.
So, based on that it tells me that his ego will not allow opposing opinions, or else he feels his arguments can't handle it.......which leads me to believe the WPITW segment is just more of that ego-feeding frenzy of his.
But it's only my opinion.
My question is, have you ever put your job security on the line, to do something that was the right thing to do?
Try it sometime. See how it works out for you.
I've not noticed it many times : )
I'll give you that OlberRam is a bit OverBoard at times, but for heck sakes, he's about the only voice in the media, besides the gods at Comedy Central, who is saying anything in the face of the Republican Storm Trooper Talk Radio machine, where if you're different, you die.
KO's such a hypocrite. Why has he never named matthews wpitw for all his deplorable comments?
I think the phrase is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" or common sense says don't diss your co-workers unless you have a new job.
If the Media really are so liberal, why aren't they hammering the retired Generals who lied for the Pentagon on EVERY F***ING NETWORK?
IT'S HIS OWN NETWORK!!
Let me put it this way. Would you go into the place that you work (if you still wanted to work there) and start dressing down everyone that you disagreed with or didn't like? I am betting if you did, you wouldn't have a job for much longer.
The same thing applies here. Use what some of us call common sense. There is a distinct reason he doesn't call out anyone on MSNBC, or NBC for that matter, he works for them.
Are you guys really that dumb? That wasn't a rhetorical question by the way.
Let me put it this way. Would you go into the place that you work (if you still wanted to work there) and start dressing down everyone that you disagreed with or didn't like? I am betting if you did, you wouldn't have a job for much longer.
No, but I also wouldn't go into my office and smear my company's competitors regarding the same conduct in which my company routinely engages.
Absolutely Thomp. Man you are on fire today :-)
If Olbermann can't or won't include everyone for his dopey award, then why even bother presenting one? It's pointless.
Really? Because that's what most companies do. My girlfriends company does that all the time, they sometimes win their contracts because of it. That's called selling your brand.
Like I said somewhere around here, if you don't know what brand structuring is, then you don't understand why KO won't go after Matthews.
Gee Whiz, thanks, and all along my bosses have been competing with their competitors by advertising superior services, client care, and competitive prices vis-a-vis our competitors. They've been fairly successful so far, but I'll tell them to step into the "real world" and start smearing our competitors, and do it hypocritically to boot, by slamming their shortcomings regardless of whether we, ourselves, are guilty of the same shortcomings.
You guys have been too infected with right-wing capitalism!!
Dbeden,
My company frequently haggles with competitors. We're very small. However, as an example, I don't think we'd tell our industry's client base that our competitors are illegitimate in some way for engaging in practicees that we ourselves routinely employ. That's what KO does . . .
advertising superior services
Thomp, that would make your competitors services inferior, wouldn't it?
ML, it's a really common sense attitude, but quite a few people on here don't like Olbermann, and they're not going to change their minds. In all fairness, he is somewhat of a hypocrite for not going after Matthews specifically, but that doesn't change the fact that he has bosses that he has to answer to, and they wouldn't let him go after Matthews without repercussions.
I mean, O'Reilly doesn't go after the Fox Network for airing what basically amounts to smut, because Roger Ailes would not allow it.
You forgot Lou Dobbs. He as well consistently criticizes the Administration, and from a more objective viewpoint than KO. . . . As does Buchanan. . . although the latter, unfortunately, has no show . . .
I see in the summary a quote of this hack hannity's, where he references the "actions" of somebody named ayers... who isn't anybody running for president that I know of, but what difference does that make, as we're in the midst of a campaign by association, and so of course it's all about what other people say and do, and whether the actual candidates "approve" "agree" "disagree" "disapprove", or "disavow" or "condemn" or "renounce" or "reject" or whatever other words of subtle distinction you'd use, to measure the candidates association to someone who's not on the ballot anyway.
As a voter, it makes me feel like I'm staring at one of those "organizational charts" that supposedly depict the hierarchy of the mafioso or some other organized crime syndicate/family (like maybe the Bush/saud/bin laden crime family/syndicate, a chart whereof I have not seen, but would like to).
Campaign by association: with a Democracy based on such stuff as associations, you might as well just throw darts at a ballot, and cast your vote that way, as any other.
But wondering about this guy ayers, and what his "actions" might have been, I Wiki'd the guy's name, and read briefly what it had to say about him... but then I stopped, because I didn't care anymore about the guy from reading his Wiki bio, than I did in the first place.
But it reminded of a movie: "Running on Empty".
If you've seen it, then you know why reading about this ayers guy reminded me of it... and if you haven't seen it, I recommend it to you, because it's really kind of touching/tragic, the story it tells... the story of a young man and young woman who were caught up in all the political strife of the 60's (and of Vietnam especially), and they were not only "radical" people, but they did "radical" things... but years later, after going "underground" and living perfectly reasonable and civil lives, under new and assumed names, they have a family of children and find out an awful thing: that the sins of their "radical" past are now haunting them, and now stand to be inherited, upon their children's innocent heads... and running from their past, they find themselves running on empty so to speak (and hence the title to the story), and the former "radicals", but now loving mom and dad, take a rather remarkable and tragic/sad step, to get their innocent kids out from under the burden of the sins of their "radical" past...
The parents rescue their own children from being guilty by association, an association with them.
It's a cool movie... it'll be hard not to feel emotional at the end, when the tragic break in the family is affected, and the James Taylor song "Fire And Rain" ushers out the story. If you've already seen it, then you know.
I don't guess the movie has the least little thing to do with this ayers guy, but neither do I care... I don't care about associations like the one being implied by the hack hannity, and I only remarked about the movie, because sometimes fictions tell better truths than do facts... and sometimes associations are nothing but lies told, about you, but in another person's name, and by way of things done by them, not you.
Dem,
It is a great world to live in where you can choose to ignore the real story and take refuge in a movie.
Congratulations.
Thanks.
And I wrote that I couldn't care less about whoever ayers is, or about guilt by association, didn't I?
Maybe someone can clarify this for me.
Checking the link provided by MMFA, I don't see where Obama said the word "deplore". Can anyone find it?
Also from the quote below by Obama:
"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George."
I do not see any condemnation of Ayers by Obma. He only states that some acts 40 years ago are detestable. To say that is a condemnation is to misinterpret Obama's quote. Nowhere is there any condemnation for Ayers.
I'm wondering why MMFA went so light in this thread, not identifying the guest... Paul Ragonese, one of the most decorated cops in NYC history, who was injured in the blast.
Olbermann should be given his own award for leaving the impression that Ayers is innocent. Ayers himself admitted he set off the bombs and is unrepentant. Ayers has said, "Guilty as hell and free as a bird". Olbermann and MMFA ought to be ashamed.
AA-
I found where he used the word 'deplore' - it was in the Fox News interview with Chris Wallace:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/
(do a search for the word 'deplore', it's used in almost the same context as 'detestable')
And yes, Ayers did some bad things. That's not what this thread is discussing. Hannity claimed that Obama didn't denounce those bad things.
So... Hannity lied. Also, the sky is blue, and the sun rises in the East.
AA,
Jesus man, why don't you just come out and admit that you believe that Obama is secretly is a terrorist and radical sympathizer and his relationship with Ayers is proof of his "real" persona? Why continue to tap dance around this issue with your veiled insinuations? the least you could do is show some direct evidence other than believeing the worst about documented casual interactions. Please!!!!!
Achrisp,
Sorry to disapoint but I can't "come out" and do as you are pleading because I do not believe Obama is a terrorist. A terrorist sympathizer? That is what it looks like to me.
I do believe that Obama's worldview is that of the radical left and his associations and words regarding those associations back up my contention.
I thought the link to Ragonese where he said, as a cop, he cannot associate with criminals is relevant. Here you guys are considering a man to be President who hung out with seditionists who actively worked for the violent overthrow of our government during a time of war. Ayers and Dohrn are terrorists, equal in my view, to McVeigh, only less murderously successful. Obama did not see any need to distance himself from them. In fact he associated with them and started his political career in their house! I am simply amazed that people have been duped into thinking that is a non-issue.
How many of you here have posted that the relationship is something like "casual". Of course it may be. But it may not. Obviously Ayers and Dohrn liked Obama's positions enough to support him. What does it mean to you when an unrepentant terrorist bomber has direct ties to the start of Obama's political career?
I personally don't want to elect a President who has ties to these terrorists. He can talk all he wants about hope and unity. But those are slogans. I haven't seen any proposal from Obama that shows any compromise. I think it is possible he may harbor even more extreme views than he's let on. His naive proposal to 'talk' with our enemies without any preconditions and his view on Iraq. His view of small town Midwesterners, Khalidi, his voting record, Rezko, all set of alarms as far as I'm concerned. He talks a great game, but his actions don't seem to reflect his words.
Considering Obama's views and his connection to Wright, to Khalidi, and to Rezko and I think with Obama we are seeing there is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
ps. Okay I'm done. The soapbox is yours. :-)
Right, we get it. You think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer because he was in the same room with these guys maybe once, or twice.
Weak sauce...
To AA, And you presume to wonder why I accuse you of not wanting to win this race honestly?
I submit the rabid speculation and reckless character assassination presented above into evidence. Henceforth referred to as exhibit: A.
Open and Kyle,
Considering a politician's associations is not dishonest in anyway.
Where have I been guilty of character assassination? I have simply pointed out the associations between the two and the documented record of Ayers and Dohrn. I will apply the same standard I would apply to any candidate who has the same type of association with known terrorists.
If you like, you can minimize the association however I think you are not being honest when you characterize the begining of Obama's political career at Ayers house as just one meeting. I think you are kidding yourself.
However it could be that you are correct. It could be that Obama wouldn't know Ayers if Ayers walked up to Obama and handed him a ticking package. If you want to discount the actual evidence, by all means, do so.
It also could be correct that Obama can not disown Rev. Wright any more than he can disown the black community and it could be that Rev. Wright's words were taken out of context.
It could be... but it is not. :-)
Kyle,
My apologies. The above message was for Achripage.
Kyle,
Thanks for the link. Were you able to get to it from the links provided or did you have to do your own search?
I'm not sure why you are saying Hannity lied. Here is a snippet from MMFA above:
One of the group's victims complained to Hannity that he can't understand why Obama would, quote, "not condemn the actions of people in the past" like Ayers.
It reads to me that the quote is from the victim, not Hannity. Your claim of lying should be directed at Paul Ragonese.
Looking at the quotes by Obama, I am still of the opinion that his use of the words deplore and detestable, (in two different responses,) because they were placed in the context of "40 years ago" raise to the level of what most of us would consider to be "condemning".
Obama's parsing reminds me of a certain ex president.
Olbermann's attempt at exonerating Ayers for his terrorst bombings by saying the charges were dropped fall into that same category.
Why wouldn't MMFA provide the exact quotes from Obama? Why did we have to go searching for them? It seems obvious that MMFA was trying to leave the mistaken impression that Obama said deplore and detestable in one instance.
MMFA has mastered that selective use of combinine quotes, and selective ignoring of the relevant facts to advance their agenda to a new low level.
Olbermann's attempt at exonerating Ayers for his terrorst bombings by saying the charges were dropped fall into that same category.
1979: Charges Against Ayers Were Dropped Because "The Government's Case Was Based On Illegal Wiretaps." The New York Times reported, "William Ayers was a fugitive, too, for nine of those years, but the Federal charges against him, Miss Dohrn and other members of the revolutionary organization were dropped in 1979, when it was ruled that the Government's case was based on illegal wiretaps." [New York Times, 12/5/80]
Ayers "Served No Time." "William Ayers: Surrendered and pleaded guilty in 1980 to possession of explosives and served no time. Teaches early childhood development at the University of Illinois." [Boston Globe, 9/19/93]
MMFA has mastered that selective use of combinine quotes, and selective ignoring of the relevant facts to advance their agenda to a new low level.
Obama Turned Eight In August 1969, The Days Of Rage Occurred In October 1969. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He turned eight on August 4, 1969. The Days of Rage, in which William Ayers participated, occurred in October 1969. [Obama Birth Certificate, UPI, 10/21/81]
Washington Post: Obama-Ayers Link "Is A Tenuous One." The Washington Post reported in a fact check, "But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?" [Washington Post, 2/18/08]
Actually YOU are getting old AA. This "guilt by association" you're trying to affix to a 8 year old child is stupid and ridiculous and petty. Get a set of b*lls and admit you don't like Obama, your conservative newsletters says he a terrorist, a Muslim and YOU believe it. Obama does not love America becuase he doesn't wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart and every other stupid, asinine thing the conservative right are are telling you.
Hey Pearlene,
Obama was in a ROOM with this guy, and they probably even shook hands. How can you NOT think he is in league with Ayers and that as an 8 year old boy (I thought at that time he was being schooled in radical Islam somewhere??) he was out tossing molotov cocktails with Ayers and his group of dumb arses. I mean, it's as clear as a sunny day here in NC. Obama is hiding out and hates America, and as soon as he takes office, he's going to turn this into some theocratic Islamic state, and then destroy the country by himself!!
Of course, then again, the stupid AA guilt by association is getting old. As I asked others, and specifically AA before, does he know anyone that ever got a speeding ticket? A DUI? Convicted of something more? Then, by his own assertion, he's as guilty as his friends are. By AA's assertion, since my friend did a short stint for posession some dope, I MUST be a dope taker and smuggler myself.
NOW do we see how stupid guilt by association is? For some, I think the answer is yes. For others, they'll keep yelling about Ayers, Rezko, and Wright, as if that even really matters.
Mags,
Start your political career from your friend's jail cell and see where it gets you. :-)
Your deliberate attempt to minimize Obama's relationship with Ayers fools no one.
What has Obama done that is wrong?
By your silly little assertions, and you've still not answered my question, that Obama is some good buddy buddy with Ayers (who apparently has reformed himself and is now a decent citizen - you know, that does happen) is just plain old straight up BS.
They travel in some similar circles. Obama went to someone's house before. YIPPEE!! This is supposed to be your big "gotcha" moment?
Again, you're trying to tie in Obama with someone he's not tied in with, and you're trying to tie down OBama with someone else's actions. It's ignorant at best, and as I said before, stoopid at the worst. Also, again, any friends of yours done anything criminal? Anything at all? Then you must be the same, because your consort with them.
For all intents and purposes John McCain kicked off his political career with help from Charles Keating, jr. If I go by AA's reasoning, I can't possibly vote for McCain because McCain is deeply associated with a known convicted felon like Keating who bilked 21,000 mostly elderly customers out of $285 million with McCain's help in providing legislative cover.
Should we get into McCain's admitted adultry on his former wife? How about the "Manchurian Candidate" stuff that was so effective in SC for Bush and Rove?
I have to admit my heart isn't really in this. I don't give a hoot about that crap. I really don't. I wish I did NOT have an overall sense of fairness and decency like the people who are trying to smear Obama. It would be more fun to be like those guys, but I like having a soul.
Open,
What you suggest about looking into McCain's relationship with Keating and/or whatever it is he did or did not do while marriage is okay by me.
As a matter of fact, I do believe others here have already done that. :-)
Pearlene,
I'll admit I am getting old. Thanks for that revelation. Also thanks for including Hillary's connection to terrorists. :-) I have a sneaking suspicion that will come up between now and November.
Contrary to your silly assertion, (and Obama's too,) nobody has said eight year old little Barak was involved with the Weathermen. Why you bring that up is beyond me.
I would think you would know it is Barak's relationship with Ayers and Dohrn as an adult that should be everyone's concern. We all know that Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant and unpunished for their acts of terrorism. As been demonstrated they have never changed their anti-American views. It is only because of the ineptness of the FBI that they are not in jail.
Forgive me if I doubt your telepathic credentials, but perhaps you could tell me which conservative newsletters I am getting?
Have I ever said Obama is a Muslim? ( the answer is no.) Why would you say that I believe that? Why are you falsely accusing me of something you know to be untrue?
I have never called Obama a terrorist. You are wrong again.
Obama can use his hand to cover what ever assinine thing he wants. I do not care. If you think that removing a flag from one's lapel is the patriotic thing to do in a time of war. Be my guest.
Anyway. I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding between us.
AA
If you are waiting for a reasoned response from Pearl, all you will get IS older.
AA,
How is it that you and your fellow ingorami suddenly have such an amazing ability to sniff a presidential candidate's shoe and tell us all what kind of dogsh*# is stuck to it? Where was your keen sense of smell in the past? You can tell me that Bush has been a good president, just as your spider-sense predicted, but i'd rather believe my own eyes. Keep up the good work, though. There may yet be some people left in this country who haven't figured out that your kind have no credibility left. That's your target audience. Hint - MMFA may not be the best place to find them. All you accomplish here is to remind us reasonable people how lucky we are to be so endowed.
"As been demonstrated they have never changed their anti-American views."--AA
That is not entirely true. Some of the views about the wrongness of the Vietnam War and how the Ayers wish they would have done more to end it sooner obviously haven't changed over time (of course, you might think that position is anti-American, but I don't think most people would), but according to the wiki article their views have been mischaracterized by the media at times. The information you claim that has "been demonstrated" is actually disputed by the Ayers.
Read Ayer's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_ayers
AA,
With all due respect I find your hypocrisy to be appalling. For example:
"Why are you falsely accusing me of something you know to be untrue?"
AA's response to Pearlene yesterday.
"I find it rather ironic that you defend a terrorist and discount his subversive bombings and attempts to overthrow the government by the use of terrorist bombings... but that a radio talk show host disgusts you."
AA's response to me on Tuesday. When asked to show on example of my defending of Ayers' actions all that was heard was crickets.
Your credibility is at question here sir. How do you expect anyone to ascribe to your conspiracy theory about Obama and Ayers when you question others for doing exactly what you do? I am quite puzzled at your logic in this matter. Must it be true that Obama and Ayers' share the same radical ideology because they served on a board together and Obama went to his home for a fundraiser in 1995? I really want you to explain how that type of thinking is not guilt by association. Convince me with somehting concrete that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer i.e. quotes, writings, actions, etc. The old "he went to his house, gave a speech with him, and served ona board with him" just ain't concrete. Pretend we are in a court of law. Prove to me your assumptions. Please.
Achrisp,
We are not in a court of law so your plea is denied. :-)
You mis characterize the meeting at Ayers house as a fund raiser. This was not some random event that coincidentally both Ayers and Obama happened to show up for. We both know it was the initial fundraiser to kick off Obama's quest for the Illinois Senate.
In case you missed it an initial run for State Senator requires that you have some backers to begin with. These people are not unknowns like in a Presidential campaign where you meet and greet hundreds of people daily. It stands to reason if one has an initial fundraiser for an unannounced candidate to the State Senate in one's home, there probably are no more than a few dozen people there if that. Ayers was an active participant in helping Obama get his initial campaign off the ground.
My term 'terrorist sympathizer' is only used in that it is apparent that Obama did not have any issues working with Ayers, speaking with Ayers, accepting donations from Ayers, and kicking off his political campaign at Ayer's house.
Again, you can believe that they barely knew each other, but don't expect me to go along with it.
As a "journalist" Hannity is supposed to have the facts on hand, and should have corrected the victim that Obama did, in fact, condemn his actions.
BTW, and I've said it before, all this condemning and denouncing and rejecting is getting really ludicrous. Obama served on the same board as this guy for three years, and for all I can tell about the Woods fund, it's simply a philanthropic fund to serve the less advantageous in Chicago. They probably meet like, once a month to vote on proposals.
But really, Obama's secretly a terrorist-loving Muslim who is going to hand over our sovereignty to the first Middle Eastern dictator to raise his hand.
But really, Obama's secretly a terrorist-loving Muslim who is going to hand over our sovereignty to the first Middle Eastern dictator to raise his hand.
Hannity says we still don't know enough about this guy with the uncommon name, Barack Obama, so the jury's still out on your assertion. We'll see what else Hannity's America can uncover this Sunday . . .
Yeah.. underpriviledged groups. Like the time they granted funding...
to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reformincluding providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57231
ps. I know some of you have apoleptic fit everytime you see a wnd reference. You can save your breath. I know it's radical right wing. Just let me know if the facts are incorrect. Thnx.
You know, the Nazi's fully supported the creation of the state of Israel, and in fact if it weren't for them, there would be no state of Israel today.
Just sayin...
DB,
I didn't know that. Do you have a link?
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Let's see, first lie. Nobody named Mona is the President of AAAN. The name of the President of this group is: Maha Jarad. Mona is on the board, NOT the President. So, first lie taken down.
http://www.aaan.org/people.html
Mission statement:
http://www.aaan.org/mission.html
Programs:
http://www.aaan.org/programs.html
Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American_Action_Network
Biography on Rashid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi
About your silly claims that were made in the WND posting:
Khalidi has been accused of having ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, based on his work for Wafa in the late 1980s. Khalidi has been accused of being “a director of the Palestinian press agency,” publishing an "adulatory book" on the PLO in which he personally thanked Yasser Arafat,[16] and acting as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations.[17] Khalidi denied the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman.[18] Khalidi explained that he often spoke to journalists in Beirut, and was usually cited, without attribution, as a well-informed Palestinian source. He also said that he was unaware of any misidentification as a PLO spokesman.[16]
The claim received renewed attention in 2008 when it was raised due to a reported friendship between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Khalidi's family when Khalidi taught at the University of Chicago. Articles by Aaron Klein and John Bachelor, writers respectively for conservative outlets World Net Daily and Human Events, were referenced by rival political campaigns and reprinted in wider-circulation media.
Mags,
I don't believe I said Mona was still in charge of the group. So your accusation of a lie is incorrect.
Take a look at Wikopedia:
Mona Khalidi is an Assistant Dean at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. [1] [2]She was formerly employed as a translator by the Palestinian press agency WAFA [3] [4] [5] [6] During the period when Mona Khalidi worked for the PLO, the organization “was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.” [7]
In Chicago in 1995, Mrs. Khalidi together with her husband Rashid Khalidi founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) [8] [9], a group associated with “confrontational statements of support for Palestinians and antagonism toward Israel.” [10]
The Los Angeles Times reported that,"In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors." [11]
Contacted by phone, (during the 2008 Presidential campaign) Mona Khalidi refused to answer questions about AAAN’s involvement with Obama
Mags,
Your second reference to Kahlidi only says he denies the connection to the PLO.
The WND said only that it has been reported that Kahlidi has connections to the PLO.
It may be that Kahlidi has no connection to the PLO. However, do you honestly believe that Kahlidi would acknowledge his involvement with the PLO?
Are you aware that Kahlidi was the person responsible for getting Ahmedinejad to speak at Columbia? It is obvious to see where his interests lie.
BTW, you never did prove that the WND's facts were wrong regarding the grant by the Woods Foundation to Kahlidi's group. I'll assume it is correct until you can prove otherwise.
Wishful thinking from the modern "Edward Murrow"!
How about someone in the media investigate where all the monies from Hannity's so-called Freedom Concerts have gone! They haven't been reported on Freedom Alliances Tax Form 990's for the last 5 years, that's for sure!
Why won't Hannity answer any questions about the monies raised from his much touted Freedom Concerts? Anyone know why?
Last thing.
If Ayers is such a HUGE friend and backer of Obama, how come he's only ponied up $200 towards his SENATORIAL campaign. No records to show he's contributed ANYTHING towards his Presidential campaign.
Keep reaching AA. You'll get something correct at some point in time.
Obama didn't have any reason to use the words "deplore" and "detestable" if Ayers was innocent.
The problem is that Obama associates with a person who has himself admitted to certain atrocities.
A baby sitter?
You throw the word atrocities arround much? Ever have to define it?
I think atrocities are what the lefties do.When rightys do those things, it's 2nd amendment rights.
Fortunately for the rightys, they rarely do those things, they just like talking about them. Timothy McVeigh was really just a dittohead, only he was a rare one with some initiative.
The difference is that conservatives condemn people like Timothy McVay while liberals praise and honor people like Ayers.
Um, helloooo?! Obama and most of the people on this site have condemned Ayers' actions. Perhaps you missed it while you were making up stuff.
Since you are all into bragging about condemning people and such nonsense, have you gotten around to condemning John McCain's adultery yet? What do you think about that, mr. we condemn everybody? Just wondering.
As others have rightly pointed out. Do you see anyone on here saying what Ayers and his group of bombers did back in the 60's and 70's was a good thing? No, you don't. You don't see anyone on here supporting those actions.
Again, you're off in wingnut land where what you say actually happens, but again, that's far from what the majority of people would call, you know, reality.
Mags,
I haven't seen anyone here, (ahem...except for a few who shall remain nameless), call Ayer's and Dohrn's action a bad thing. The silence really does signify approval in the same fashion that Obama kicked off his political career in Ayers house signifies acceptance.
You can deny it but you cannot hide it. :-)
Are you suggesting that Rush Limbaugh calls on his listeners to commit acts of violence? I have been listening to Rush for 18 years and I have never once heard him call upon anyone to commit violence.
Your comment is really stupid. You know Rush does not condone violence. You just want to take a pot shot at him. This comment just makes you look like an idiot.
I loathe Hillary and Obama. However, I can criticize them on the substance of their policies. I do not believe either of them condones violience.
No definition required. I was quite clear.
Then number the atrocites. Date, time, weather, persons injured, persons deceased, infrastructure damaged, imediate and chronic social damsge, as a result of each.
At what level, in combination or singlular, giving each a scale 0f 1 to 10, ten being an acute sample, is the line of atrocity drawn.
You being quite sure the gentleman qualifies to the definition, show how you define atrocity. Stun us bub.
Typical liberals! :) When you lose an argument you turn the conversation away from the facts and instead parse words.
I can't wait to see how you parse away at this very post! :):):):)
On the derangment indice, I give you an 8.5.
Parse me a ribbaa!
Blowing up empty buildings is now an atrocity? OK... If you say so. Only in a weird world view is that an atrocity. It's not a good thing to do at all, but again, an atrocity? Methinks you should go back and figure out if atrocity means what you think that it means, because I don't think that it does. Here, let me help:
An atrocity (from the Latin atrox, "atrocious", from Latin ater ="matte black") is a term used to describe crimes or excesses ranging from an act committed against a single person to one committed against a population or ethnic group.
Not sure how empty buildings fit into that definition. Again, not defending what was done (just to make it perfectly clear to you, because you appear to not understand English after all) just pointing out that how you define it is not correct. Not even close really.
What proof do you have that Ayers supposed "intent of [sic] harming people"?...besides mindreading. Other than that part, I don't think anyone would quible with the characterization you used.
You guys crack me up.
Go back and look at all the proof I showed you earlier.
Besides the fact that Ayers said, "Kill the rich people", advocated the overthrow of the government, sided with the Black Panthers, set off bombs in police stations and the Pentagon, may have set off bombs where people were killed, set off bombs where people were injured, committed terrorist acts, and is still unrepentant, you ask for proof?
The disconnect you show amazes me. Thanks for the laugh.
The above was a response to ewe.
Oh and another thing. Ayers and Dohrn applauded the Manson's clan's butchering and murdering Sharon Tate and the others. Dohrn publicly called for a three fingered salute to mimic the fork that was stuck into Tate's pregnant belly. ... and you ask for proof.
Oh and three people, including Ayes fiancee at the time, were killed when a bomb they were making to set off at a dance, exploded prematurely. Does that qualify for an atrocity?
This is a perfect example of how the suicidal Loony Left can't think clearly, and why they're such easy victims. By the time they figure out that Ayers and fellow travelers are just common criminals, they've already been had.
This won't change. It fits the self-loathing mindset installed in them (they invite it, and can't see it happening) over the years, beginning in childhood.
Re: Ayers as an English teacher--summitch probably can't spell or construct a sentence either, but no matter--he's tenured.
Justice Scalia is another one with initiative, I guess. Per the Justice, torture is not cruel and unusual punishment, because, you see, it has never been defined as punishment. Steel trap mind there. As it is done before any verdict is reached, then it can't even be defined as punishment.
Who ever paid for that man, got his money's worth.
I saw Scalia's interview, parts of it anyway. Pretty stunning that all of the "news" channels are focused on a pastor giving a sermon calling for accountability for sins, and calling it un-American, while a SC justice is declaring that the Constitutional rights of innocent people should be less important than those of the guilty.
I'm going to nick Draftedin68's line here; Gooooooooooood puhhhhhhpeeeeeeeze!!!
Nice try Barry, but Senator Coburn did not host a 'get acquainted' party for you to start a political career. Also, I don't think Mr. Ayers had any apologies at that time (you were probably a little older than 8 then) for maiming people, bombing buildings and being a part of a terrorist group.
It does matter who you hang out with, we only wish it had with more people the likes of Senator Coburn, I suppose.
Does it bother you that McCain got his early political support from a man convicted of swindling 21,000 mostly elderly people out of $285 million?
McCain used his position to protect the felon's fraud from being detected sooner by voting against regulation.
How about the fact that John McCain is a confessed adulterer? The truth is none of this matters to me, but it appears to matter to conservatives a whole bunch. Or does this moral outrage come and go?
Penny for your thoughts?
After reading JG's posts, I started laughing.He posits that Liberals applaud Ayers, provides no proof of that ever happening, and when shown he's wrong, claims he won the argument.
Sean Hannity is one of the most objective commentators in the media. Yes, he bashes Democrats, but he also continually hilights McCain's many faults. If he were in the tank for the GOP he would cover up for McCain instead of being one of his most ardent critics.
Sean is a great American patriot. His Feedon Concerts send many children of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice to college for free.
Most media are in the tank for one party (the Democrats). Hannity calls it as he sees it.
"He also neglected to point out that all charges against Ayers were dropped and he was never convicted of anything, let alone terrorism."
Is that all they got? Heck, Ollie North was actually convicted of his crimes and he gets to be on FOX News.