Coburn == Ayers?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kylos, Apr 19, 2008.

  1. kylos macrumors 6502a

    kylos

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    MI
    #1
    Something I noticed in the recent Penn. debate was that Obama, when questioned about domestic terrorist William Ayers (lets not get into ABC bashing here, please; actually, nevermind, I know it'll happen awyway), Obama equated his association with Ayers as comparable to that of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who suggested that those who provide abortions be chargeable with a capital offense.

    Now while I'm sure a large portion of this nation would strenuously disagree with Coburn on this issue, I think it should be reasonably apparent that Coburn's suggestion, while offensive to many, did not resort to terroristic tactics by attacking targets who operate inside the law. No, his suggestion (no matter how disagreeable), was to lawfully change the law to make certain behavior criminal, giving fair notice to potential lawbreakers, so that they could have the opportunity to comply. Domestic terrorist he is not.

    An apt comparison would have been Eric Rudolph, the bomber from Atlanta who attacked the Olympics, abortion clinics, and lesbian night-clubs, but I don't think Obama would ever be found associating with him. In fact, my guess is that Rudolph has very few associates at all, considering he's locked up in a supermax. Obama's explanation is a rather unsound argument.

    I've been hesitant to make much of Obama's association, since it doesn't seem that he's had much connection with him other than at the occasional Chicago liberal meet-and-greet. The real question is why is Ayers a respected professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and why is he still accepted and given any consideration in the Chicago liberal community? He is an unrepentant terrorist. He should be treated as such.

    In my mind, one cannot make a credible direct connection between Obama and Ayers. The real issue is that those he associates with have never bothered to distance themselves appreciably from a terrorist. And because of that, he fails to see the radical differences between people such as Senator Coburn and William Ayers.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    It happened a long time ago, we don't class Gerry Adams (head of Sien Fien) as a terrorist anymore. Though apparently he is pretty much the only white person to ever get "randomly selected" for extra security checks at airports.

    However defending William Ayers seems foolish of Obama.
     
  3. kylos thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kylos

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    MI
    #3
    It did happen awhile ago, but even so, why is he still given consideration in liberal circles in Chicago, when as late as September 11, 2001, he expressed no regret for his actions and stated he felt he didn't do enough (check previously linked article)? That's the real question.

    For Obama, a simple "I was unaware of his actions at the time", or "I met him only briefly" would stop questioning quickly. Perhaps he is unable to say that though.
     
  4. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #4
    You call them terrorists, but they (and many others) view them as patriots. However, for the most part, they did not target their fellow citizens, but instead were fighting a war against, what they perceived, a ruthless, corrupt government.

    There is no excuse for the armored car robbery. But, that was a small splinter group who did that. They were tried, convicted and are still in prison. Those were difficult times and I am pretty knowledgeable about the SDS/Weather Underground movement in California.
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    Why all the guilt by association? And why only about Obama? Hillary and McCain have people they're associated with who aren't great either. Not to mention Bush and the people in his administration. Not harping on you, just don't think it's as important as everyone is trying to make it. I'm not going to defend them, but why should Obama have to? Aren't there more important things to worry about?
     
  6. kylos thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kylos

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    MI
    #6
    First, find a terrorist amongst their associates and we can then make direct comparisons. That was what I was calling Obama out on here, making apples to oranges comparisons; it's rather disingenuous.

    But, yes, as I noted in my first post, I have not wanted to make too big a deal out of this because I'm sure one is likely to meet unsavory characters through the course of one's career, and while Obama did discuss his political plans in Ayers basement, I got the feeling his advisors recommended he visit various key Chicago political figures, and he did so, figuring it would help establish him with his potential base without necessarily being fully aware of Ayer's past.

    The issue I have is why is Ayers even considered to be a key political figure in Chicago in the first place? SMM's attempt to make them into patriotic heros may shine some light on this. There are many people in this nation who have grievances with the government, but attacking with lethal force without comparable provocation does not make you a patriot, it makes you a terrorist. Patriots follow the civil processes in place to change their government. However misguided I may feel those in Brattleboro, VT are in their attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney, they haven't engaged in bombings and violent attacks. They love this country. I can't say the same for those who would promote their aims by causing our country to panic and fear unknown attackers.

    Nobody lauds as a hero the man who several months back shot up his city council because of his disagreement with them. Nor do people congratulate the man who several years ago fortified a bulldozer and went through town wrecking buildings because of his disagreement with the local authorities. Civilization depends on resolving grievances through appropriate channels, not taking matters into your own hands. That's why excuses should not be made for Ayers and those who enable him. He holds no regret for his actions and should be marginalized instead of given a professorship and a place of respect in the community.
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    Again, I wasn't attacking you, I just don't see how this has much more to do with Obama than some of the other associations anyone else has with any other wackos. If Obama was the guy leading the charge, or even following this guy, you'd have a point. If we were trying to say it was ok because any of the other candidates had links to terrorists or whatever, that would be wrong too. This just seems like a vague attempt to link him to someone controversial, even dangerous, because it's difficult to attack the man himself as easily. The Coburn reference was just thrown out there are trying to point out how you can take a statement and apply it to a person and then attempt to link them to a something bad. It wasn't apt, but then, I don't see how the question should even be asked unless more valid, as I said, if Obama himself were actually involved with any of the violent acts being criticized.
     
  8. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #8
    Calling Ayers a terrorist is a bit sketchy, even by today's ridiculous standards. He was a member of a movement, one faction of which engaged in criminal activity. He, as far as can be proved, was not a member of the criminal element.

    I'm sick and tired of this race, and have been ever since we reached the mudslinging stage of the election. Obama and Hillary are each trying to avoid a fatal gaffe while goading their opponent to making one.

    The skeletons are jumping out of closets in droves.
     
  9. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    Clarification, I don't actually know who Ayers is. Apparently he isn't who I thought he was. Can anyone post more info for the uninitiated who find Wiki simplistic?
     
  10. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    Here is a good place to start.

    Who is Bill Ayers?

    Another one

    No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen
     
  11. kylos thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kylos

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    MI
    #11
    You don't think legitimizing someone who engaged in violent extremism is questionable? I think it raises at a minimum serious issues about judgment.

    And btw, your response wasn't interpreted as an attack. So far, this seems to be a pretty civil discussion. Enlightening, but civil

    By his own words, he set bombs. I think that's evidence enough to indicate that he was active in the criminal element. While the Weather Underground managed to be pretty ineffective, killing only their own in an accidental explosion (Ayers girlfriend at the time being one of those killed), they did promote and pursue a radical agenda that could have caused lethal harm if the accident had not hindered their actions.

    While this race has gotten pretty ugly and pathetic at times, I do think some associations are valid targets of exploration. If I were to judge a candidate only by what they said and not what they did, I would end up with a pretty distorted picture of the candidate, as their words don't necessarily have any correlation with how they truly feel. I think the Bill Ayers connection raises a few valid concerns (as I've listed above) and merits some more journalistic research.

    But I agree with you that in general this election has devolved into a cycle of attack, repudiation and subsequent expulsion of various individuals associated with either campaign for various offensive remarks. The candidates are mostly just trying to damage the other at this point. It gets a little tiring.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    But has Obama done that? I guess my problem is that Obama is being attached to someone he seemed to have a very vague relationship with. As he isn't the violent extremist who set these bombs, I just don't see it as big of an issue as those things that are really important no one seems to want to talk about while playing guilt by association. If he had bombed something, of course I would be interested. Or if he supported someone who did, or helped them, or anything else. But if this is all there is, just seems to be looking for links where there are none. I'm close to crazy people too, doesn't mean I should be held accountable for what they do or have done. All I'm sayin' is all.
     
  13. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #13
    Quite simply, many liberals- especially in academia, feel the US government are the real terrorists, and consider individuals like W. Ayers to be 'freedom fighters'.

    B. Obama can't throw him under the bus without offending his liberal base.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Do they?

    Yes, I'm sure that's it. :rolleyes:

    If you care more about the people Obama may have known than Obama's actual policies that affect us, you're exactly what I was talking about.
     

Share This Page