Bill Bucko

Obama + Ayers the Terrorist

59 posts in this topic

I go to a school with about 30,000 students and I saw tons of support for Obama and virtually nothing for McCain, or at least even anti-Obama, save for one professor who was literally afraid to openly speak about it.

That's because intellectuals are so rabidly anti-American, anti-individual, anti-reason, and anti everything of value. Most Americans out there in the real world are not. Neither are most of the professors' brainwashed students 20+ years out of college once they face the difficulty of achieving their dreams in the real world when burdened by taxes, regulations, and other government obstacles to success.

Also, in terms of support, note that 90% is a very large majority. Are those reporters highly non-representative of the rest of modern America?

No, they are extremely non-representative.

Why would anybody listen to them if so?

People have stopped listening to them. That's why newspapers are losing readers, losing advertising, laying off reporters, and going bankrupt.

Exactly, Betsy. I posted mine without having seen yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People have stopped listening to them. That's why newspapers are losing readers, losing advertising, laying off reporters, and going bankrupt.

I will note that if their influence is that weak, then their slanted reporting is not the explanation for the large majority who did, in fact, vote for Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of terrorists and journalists, Ayn Rand had the corrupt media pegged almost four decades ago.

[T]he unspeakable little drugged monstrosities who resort to violence—and who have progressed, without significant opposition, from campus sit-ins to arson to such an atrocity as mass terrorization and the bombing of public places—should be treated as the criminals they are, and not as political "dissenters."

Morally, they are worse than the plain criminal: he, at least, does not subvert the realm of ideas; he does not posture as a champion of rights, justice and freedom. Legally, both kinds should be given the same treatment. Ideas end where a gun begins.

The moral bankruptcy of today's liberal Establishment (including its concomitant: the erosion of the concept of individual rights) is the basic cause of the young thugs' activities. The granting to these thugs of such titles as "political dissenters" and "idealists" is the major reason of their accelerating growth. [...]

If such monstrous actions as bombings are regarded as "idealistic" because the actors profess to be motivated by the "welfare of others"—and the liberal journalists who proclaim this are not hooted out of their profession—then the last vestige of and pretense at morality are gone from today's culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People have stopped listening to them. That's why newspapers are losing readers, losing advertising, laying off reporters, and going bankrupt.

I will note that if their influence is that weak, then their slanted reporting is not the explanation for the large majority who did, in fact, vote for Obama.

It wasn't that large a majority and, has been discussed elsewhere, it was primarily due to disgust with Bush and McCain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't that large a majority and, has been discussed elsewhere, it was primarily due to disgust with Bush and McCain.

Better wording on my part would be: by a significant absolute majority and by a large margin over McCain (52.9% Obama, 45.7% McCain.)

Well justified disgust with Bush and McCain does not explain voting for the most anti-American candidate in U.S. history. What's the threshold, a literal Hitler? Though the most dismaying result was the apparently significant percentage of *Objectivists* who voted for Obama simply as a vote against the religious right, regardless of his nature.

Obama's supporters and associations were very well known. Voting for him anyway amounts - at minimum - to accepting them as unimportant. I don't consider that to be a positive comment on those voters either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well justified disgust with Bush and McCain does not explain voting for the most anti-American candidate in U.S. history.

[...]

Obama's supporters and associations were very well known.

To whom? The voters were amazingly ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To whom? The voters were amazingly ignorant.

In the age of the internet it's very easy to find massive amounts of information. Somebody ignorantly casting a vote for Obama could be the most corrupt of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To whom? The voters were amazingly ignorant.

In the age of the internet it's very easy to find massive amounts of information. Somebody ignorantly casting a vote for Obama could be the most corrupt of all.

Yes, the voters were not merely amazingly ignorant, they were blissfully ignorant. They not only did not pay any attention to the information available about Obama, but they did not demand clarity of a campaign driven by mindless slogans ("hope", "change", "yes we can"). Obama won because his base blotted out facts with emotions; they protected him against accusations of socialism by refusing to learn his policies, all in the name of being inclusive rather than "partisan". It was a socialist campaign insulated by pragmatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's cohort Bill Ayers the unrepentant terrorist is still unrepentant.

In all of your interviews, especially around the election, you always had to open up by denouncing the violence inflicted by the Weather Underground...
You said always denounced the violence of the Weather Underground? I don't remember that.
I don't believe I ever said it was regrettable.
In everything I've written there is no question that the Weather Underground crossed, you know, lines of legality and I sometimes say we crossed lines of common sense in certain ways, but I never denounced what we did and the reason is because in the context of those times and what was going on, um, I actually think that we were very restrained, and I've always thought that and I still think it. I think the most violent force then and even more violent today is the US government. Do I think what we did was brilliant? Not really. Do I think it was horrendous? Absolutely not.
Who's the force for oppression and exploitation? In my view if you look at the 60's and you look at the 70's the Weather Underground was not only restrained, we were temperate, we were not particularly violent, we destroyed some property.

Interview here. He compares his "not particularly violent" bombing with the Wikileaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites