The Ad They Don't Want You to See

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I never said he wasn’t a crazy hippy. I said I don’t care and I am willing to bet that deep down, neither do any one of you. Not one of you brought this up during or after 9/11 until just now…because of Obama.
[/quote]

Of course not. It’s old news and he’s not the only crazy hippie still around. The point is that Obama holds the man in high regard and is pleased to associate with him. Now I don’t think you hold Ayers in high regard, but doesn’t raise just a bit of a red flag that Obama does?

[quote]
40 years ago, no one died. If even one single life had been lost, I could see this being an issue worth basing voting decisions on. I could care less that a crazy hippy would claim he would still act like a crazy hippy…even though he hasn’t done jack shit for 4 whole decades.[/quote]

It’s irrelevant that no one died. It still doesn’t change the reasoning or principles by which Ayers acted. And again, this isn’t about Ayers, it is about the fact that Obama is happy to associate with crazy hippies.

102

[quote]tedro wrote:

Of course not. It’s old news and he’s not the only crazy hippie still around. The point is that Obama holds the man in high regard and is pleased to associate with him. Now I don’t think you hold Ayers in high regard, but doesn’t raise just a bit of a red flag that Obama does?[/quote]

No. If anything it makes me want to research the man and find out WHY if that is even the case. Is this even the case? Ayers is on Obama’s speed dial? Really?

Those reasons and those principals were born from an era that bears no resemblance to the world we live in right now.

103

[quote]tedro wrote:
Of course not. It’s old news and he’s not the only crazy hippie still around. The point is that Obama holds the man in high regard and is pleased to associate with him. Now I don’t think you hold Ayers in high regard, but doesn’t raise just a bit of a red flag that Obama does?
[/quote]

“Holds him in high regard?” Show some proof, then. Not that it would really matter, anyway.

104

We had a similar problem in Germany.

Joschka Fischer, who was at that time the foreign minister and quite popular, was under serious pressure from conservative politicians and press.
The “problem” was his activist youth. As a twenty-something left student, he participated in violent demonstrations, there was even footage how he wrestled with a police officer. He also admitted throwing stones.
To an apathetic political person, this is, of course, an outrage.
To them the state cannot be wrong. A young, political person who’s trying to change the staus quo?
In the Bundestag (kind of lower parliament house) there was a grand questioning, where all the well-fed, lazy bastards posed unreal questions: “could you guarantee that your stones never hurt anybody?” , “but didn’t you hurled them with the intention of hurting someone?” blabla…
These fucks never had any intention of doing something besides filling their pockets. Politics as a career choice, just like your ruling elite (Bush, McCain etc.).

God forbid someone has genuine convictions and wants to fight for them.
He is a terrorist per definition and must be shot without trial.

105

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:

Of course not. It’s old news and he’s not the only crazy hippie still around. The point is that Obama holds the man in high regard and is pleased to associate with him. Now I don’t think you hold Ayers in high regard, but doesn’t raise just a bit of a red flag that Obama does?

No. If anything it makes me want to research the man and find out WHY if that is even the case. Is this even the case? Ayers is on Obama’s speed dial? Really?

It’s irrelevant that no one died. It still doesn’t change the reasoning or principles by which Ayers acted. And again, this isn’t about Ayers, it is about the fact that Obama is happy to associate with crazy hippies.

Those reasons and those principals were born from an era that bears no resemblance to the world we live in right now.

[/quote]

There is no way you are convincing anybody, not even yourself, that if Mccain had identical ties with someone who had bombed, say a couple southern black churches or places of business in 1969, got off on a technicality, never expressed remorse and in the last several years lamented not having committed even more similar acts, you would be shrugging it off on the explanation that nobody got hurt.

I defy you to say that.

106

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:

Of course not. It’s old news and he’s not the only crazy hippie still around. The point is that Obama holds the man in high regard and is pleased to associate with him. Now I don’t think you hold Ayers in high regard, but doesn’t raise just a bit of a red flag that Obama does?

No. If anything it makes me want to research the man and find out WHY if that is even the case. Is this even the case? Ayers is on Obama’s speed dial? Really?

It’s irrelevant that no one died. It still doesn’t change the reasoning or principles by which Ayers acted. And again, this isn’t about Ayers, it is about the fact that Obama is happy to associate with crazy hippies.

Those reasons and those principals were born from an era that bears no resemblance to the world we live in right now.

There is no way you are convincing anybody, not even yourself, that if Mccain had identical ties with someone who had bombed, say a couple southern black churches or places of business in 1969, got off on a technicality, never expressed remorse and in the last several years lamented not having committed even more similar acts, you would be shrugging it off on the explanation that nobody got hurt.

I defy you to say that.[/quote]

But it’s ok for every Republican candidate to make a speach during election year at Bob Jones University, where they still hate blacks and Catholics (and make no bones about it) ?

And if you think that Republican candidates haven’t in some way taken money from an organization that either supports or has had a hand in bombing an abortion clinic, you’re fooling yourself.

It’s funny how the past is held against some candidates, but not all. George W’s coke dealers get a pass, but Obama political associates (however radical they may be) do not.

Funny how that shit works.

107

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
We had a similar problem in Germany.

Joschka Fischer, who was at that time the foreign minister and quite popular, was under serious pressure from conservative politicians and press.
The “problem” was his activist youth. As a twenty-something left student, he participated in violent demonstrations, there was even footage how he wrestled with a police officer. He also admitted throwing stones.
To an apathetic political person, this is, of course, an outrage.
To them the state cannot be wrong. A young, political person who’s trying to change the staus quo?
In the Bundestag (kind of lower parliament house) there was a grand questioning, where all the well-fed, lazy bastards posed unreal questions: “could you guarantee that your stones never hurt anybody?” , “but didn’t you hurled them with the intention of hurting someone?” blabla…
These fucks never had any intention of doing something besides filling their pockets. Politics as a career choice, just like your ruling elite (Bush, McCain etc.).

God forbid someone has genuine convictions and wants to fight for them.
He is a terrorist per definition and must be shot without trial.[/quote]

Well, you know, in America, we don’t like people to get elected that have been involved in grassroots political campaigns that they feel strongly enough about that they’d risk arrest.

No, here in America we like actors, crooks, and sons of spoiled rich boys that we could sit at a barbecue with and know how to change tires.

If you don’t like it…well, fuck you Nazi, we have the bombs.

108

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
But it’s ok for every Republican candidate to make a speach during election year at Bob Jones University, where they still hate blacks and Catholics (and make no bones about it) ?
[/quote]

Show proof that Bob Jones hate blacks.

This is typical of the left wing koolaid crowd: say the lie long enough and loud enough, and it becomes fact. well, guess what? I ain’t buying unless you can show substantial proof (i.e. not from some liberal rag ejaculating the same lies you are) that Bob Jones “HATES” blacks.

The catholic comment is so fucking stupid that I won’t even ask you to try to find proof of that.

I swear, you fuckng liberal cocksuckers are willing to say anything and deny anything to feel justified in your position.

How in the fuck do you get an honest night’s sleep?

109

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:

Of course not. It’s old news and he’s not the only crazy hippie still around. The point is that Obama holds the man in high regard and is pleased to associate with him. Now I don’t think you hold Ayers in high regard, but doesn’t raise just a bit of a red flag that Obama does?

No. If anything it makes me want to research the man and find out WHY if that is even the case. Is this even the case? Ayers is on Obama’s speed dial? Really?

It’s irrelevant that no one died. It still doesn’t change the reasoning or principles by which Ayers acted. And again, this isn’t about Ayers, it is about the fact that Obama is happy to associate with crazy hippies.

Those reasons and those principals were born from an era that bears no resemblance to the world we live in right now.

[/quote]

I’m just curious - has Obama done or said a fucking thing you disagree with?

He’s a member of a racist church. Not a problem for you.

His wife is about as racist as a person can be. No bitching from you.

Opie is seeking the counsel of domestic terrorists, and you are acting as if there is a statute of limitations on acting with deadly force on the US gov’t.

How do you reconcile this without admitting you are voting for the skin color? because I know that if Opie were white - you wold be one of the torch carriers looking to lynch his worthless fucking ass.

110

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
But it’s ok for every Republican candidate to make a speach during election year at Bob Jones University, where they still hate blacks and Catholics (and make no bones about it) ?

Show proof that Bob Jones hate blacks.

This is typical of the left wing koolaid crowd: say the lie long enough and loud enough, and it becomes fact. well, guess what? I ain’t buying unless you can show substantial proof (i.e. not from some liberal rag ejaculating the same lies you are) that Bob Jones “HATES” blacks.
[/quote]

But I thought that’s what we did here? Everyone else posts up blatantly biased sources, so why can’t I?

What does that mean? That I have to find the spot on Fauxnews website where they talked about Bob Jones and it’s racism? Cause I’ll tell you now, I bet they never reported it. Ever.

[quote]
The catholic comment is so fucking stupid that I won’t even ask you to try to find proof of that.

I swear, you fuckng liberal cocksuckers are willing to say anything and deny anything to feel justified in your position.

How in the fuck do you get an honest night’s sleep? [/quote]

Honestly, who the fuck has an interracial dating policy? These people are such fucking hypocrites it’s amazing… they’ll be the first ones to talk about the founding fathers, but then they’ll conveniantly forget that Jefferson was all about some black poontang.

The following policy is an abomination.

Interracial Dating and Marriage

Why is the focus being placed on something which is such a small and insignificant part of the University’s whole, making it a media obsession? The last two or three generations of students who have graduated from this institution never once heard a discussion of this policy. It is not something that is preached or talked about.

This institution, offering more than 110 academic majors, produces men and women of character and trained intellect of the sort employers need and scarcely find today. We have a wholesome, disciplined, kind, and joyous student body. Racism and hatred are not part of our institutional character. The media has missed the point. Instead of exulting in the freshness and academic importance of the school, they have magnified something that we don’t magnify and never discuss. Why?

Is Bob Jones University guilty of racism because it has a rule restricting interracial dating? Students of all races attend here and live in racial harmony and respect for one another as Christians. If there is discrimination in the policy, which race is discriminated against? Black, white, or yellow? Each person dates within his own race. For there to be discrimination, one race would have to be treated differently than the other.

Is Bob Jones University’s interracial dating policy the issue, or is its right to hold the policy the issue?

Since most people of all races choose to marry within their race, this furor against Bob Jones University seems totally disproportionate. The noise comes from but a strident few with personal agendas.

If the people of all races who choose to attend Bob Jones University have something they can live with, why should the world at large care? It does them no harm. None of the University’s rules have any bearing or influence upon society at large.

Does Bob Jones University look down upon interracially married couples? No. The warning against interracial marriages is not about the couple, but about the one-world system.

Can those who are already interracially married enter BJU as students? Yes. BJU enrolls interracially married couples who wish to be educated here even though we have our dating policy.

Is there a Bible verse or passage that teaches against interracial marriage? No.

Is there a Bible principle upon which the University’s interracial dating stance is founded? Yes.

The one-world principle-every effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world together in unity plays into the hand of Antichrist. This first began at the Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when the Lord returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a thousand years.

Bob Jones University opposes one world, one church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God made racial differences as He made sexual differences. Each race and each sex should be proud to be what God made it, and none should reproach the other.

Does the University believe that those who choose interracial marriage do so out of rebellion against God? No. It does believe, however, that often the promoters of it do so out of antagonism toward God because they are often the same entities that promote homosexuality, abortion, and other forms of social radicalism.

Bob Jones University’s policy regarding interracial dating is more of an opposition to the rebellious and defiant antichrist spirit of the promoters of one-worldism than to interracial dating itself. Many who date and marry interracially are just as opposed to one-worldism and the spirit of Antichrist as we are.

On Catholics- (Funny, I don’t feel “enslaved”). The motherfuckers are crazy.

From the time of the Reformation onward, it has been understood that there is no commonality between the Bible way, which is justification by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and salvation by works, which the faithful, practicing Catholic embraces.

We love the practicing Catholic and earnestly desire to see him accept the Christ of the Cross, leave the false system that has enslaved his soul, and enjoy the freedom of sins forgiven that is available for any of us in Christ alone.

111

Here’s another from a “liberal rag” (or, as we call it in America, “the media”).

COLUMN

Bob Jones�??s True Colors
Veena Thomas

George W. Bush was heavily criticized for appearing at Bob Jones University, a non-accredited college known for being racist and anti-Catholic. He made no attempt to distance himself from any of the philosophies of the university, perhaps leading some people to think he supported the college�??s beliefs. Though Bush denied the allegations, and subsequently apologized, the image remained in the public�??s eye.

Not sure how a university could be both racist and anti-Catholic, and get away with it, I decided to do some research. I located the college�??s website http://www.bju.edu and began to browse. Not surprisingly, the site had an entire section devoted to recent press coverage and in defense of the institution. Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University, wrote a formal press release in support of his college. It reads like a used car salesman�??s pitch – Bob Jones manages to alienate half of the people in his speech whom he so desperately needs to convince to support his college. While championing religious freedom in the US, he mocks Islam, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism, as he wonders why some of their fundamental beliefs have not been attacked sooner.

Wait… isn�??t he supposed to be trying to convince us that he and his university are not anti-Catholic?

Religious freedom and allowing others to believe and practice what they want is one of the ideas upon which this country was founded. Yet if Bob Jones kept insisting that he was not anti-Catholic, what would cause others to think so? There must be a complication here.

Sure enough, upon reading a transcript of Larry King interviewing Bob Jones, I found a clue. Stated Larry King, �??But if you call the pope the anti-Christ you will offend Catholics…�?? Instead of refuting this statement, or denying he had ever done such a thing, he instead supported himself. �??Yes, but you know, … Article VI of the Westminster Confession calls the pope an anti-Christ,�?? retorted Jones. Not anti-Catholic? His repeated denials of anti-Catholic beliefs were fast wearing thin, especially when he could hardly make it through a denial without bashing Catholics. Undoubtedly his case wasn�??t helped when Larry King asked, �??Did you call George W. Bush�??s father a devil?�?? and Jones replied, �??You know I did.�??

Bob Jones seemed very confused by Larry King and managed to trip up often and look like an idiot. As Jones later ranted and raved about all of the liberals at Harvard and Yale, King had to remind him that George W. Bush graduated from Yale. Jones had nothing to counter with except �??Well, it’s possible for a man to come through the system and not buy into it.�??

What about the allegations of racism? In the course of defending himself from such allegations, Jones managed to insinuate that blacks and other races come from broken homes and abusive families. Is he clueless at how to support himself, or does he just have opinions too strong to hide for very long? What exactly were the allegations?

Apparently Bob Jones University has had an official ban on interracial dating for many years. Its justification: �??We stand against the one-world government, against the coming world of anti-Christ, which is a one world system of blending of all differences, of blending of national differences, economic differences, church differences, into a big one ecumenical world.�??

BJU says it would prefer to keep the races separate. As a student put it, �??My own personal belief is that God has made races perfect. God has made whites perfect and blacks and Orientals, and he hasn�??t given us any reason to intermix those races.

�??But he has made them perfect. It’s not a policy that discriminates against the whites or the blacks or the Orientals, but it�??s a policy that is equal to all three of the races.�?? Excuse me – all three of the races? Don�??t they teach students at BJU that not everyone falls so neatly into one of those three categories?

After the media spotlight hit BJU, suddenly the ban on interracial dating was dropped. Their sudden decision to eliminate the ban troubled me almost as much as their having it. Said Jones, �??We have a broader testimony. And if all anybody can see is this rule, which we never talk about or preach, which most of our students couldn�??t even tell you what it is. … Why should we have this here as an obstacle?�??

If Jones claims the rule is so insignificant, then why was it implemented for so many years, and why do students have such strong views favoring the ban? On the reverse side, if the rule was so important to the university, as is seemingly implied by its existence, why did they instantly eliminate it when attacked? What about standing up for your beliefs? What are Bob Jones University’s true beliefs? What does Bob Jones III really stand for? Does he have the strength to stand for anything?

What bothers me most is that someone like Bob Jones can preach what he likes, including prejudice and animosity towards other religions, and can shape the minds of impressionable college students, all under the guise of freedom of religion. Where do we draw the line?

Sadly, Bob Jones can stand on his soapbox and preach what he likes, and no one can stop him.

112

Bob Jones University: Racism by Any Other Name…
Last week, Bob Jones University eliminated its long-standing policy against interracial dating. This came hot on the heels of a lot of ridicule the school received after Gov. George W. Bush visited there recently, including ridicule from Sen. John McCain.

A lot of people were unaware that BJU had this policy. Okay, let’s be honest. Most people have never heard of this ultra-conservative school in the first place. But the fact is, this policy has been on its books since it was founded in 1927.

And in point of fact, BJU is not changing this policy because it feels interracial dating is okay. The school has always maintained that it is a tool of the antichrist. They are only buckling under pressure because they want “everybody to understand that the liberals were all wrong when they said [the school was] racist.”

See�?� they’re not racist�?� they just feel everyone should date someone of the same skin color. Yeah, right�?�

Oh, and lest anyone think this policy was just dropped and forgotten, I’m afraid that’s not quite accurate. You see, in order for students of two different races to date, they must first obtain the permission of their parents. The parents must send a letter to the dean of men or women telling the school that the relationship has their blessing before the school will allow it.

In 1983, BJU lost its tax-exempt status because the anti-dating policy was in violation of federal public policy. I wonder if they’ll reapply, now.

This bit of policy switching isn’t something that casts a good light on BJU, really. Yes, the change is for the better, but their reasons are shallow. It’s akin to other changes in religious history, such as the many alterations of Catholic Church opinion, and Utah’s disavowal of polygamy in order to gain statehood.

It’s all showbiz, as Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., would say. It’s all public relations and trying not to look utterly stupid.

It’s not, however, honest.

113

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

It’s funny how the past is held against some candidates, but not all. George W’s coke dealers get a pass, but Obama political associates (however radical they may be) do not.

Funny how that shit works.[/quote]

Well, whatever the status of George W’s “coke dealers” or your incurable stage 4 condition of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and refusing to compare the status of Barry O’s “coke dealers”, coke dealers aren’t good information on someone’s politics - association with a former domestic terrorist and current left-wing radical is.

Who Obama has worked with in Chicago can certainly inform us as to Obama’s politics, which is especially important since he has done so much to remain vague.

And, of course, we know it’s important - if it weren’t, Obama and his surrogates wouldn’t be trying so hard to hide the information from the public’s eyes: see the Annenberg Challenge.

114

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
A bunch of pointless bullshit[/quote]

So insead of showing some fucking proof, you decide to make a straw man out of Fox, and give me op/ed pieces.

Dude - just admit you have nothing. Just admit you are talking out of your ass. I mean, everyone knows it already except you.

115

So, in order to support their candidate, Democrat voters have to defend Obama’s associations with a radical Black Marxist theologian/pastor, and a radical leftist and unapologetic domestic terrorist. Uh, you guys can complain about the far right as much as you want, but your party is officially being headed by the far, far, far, left now. Good luck with that, you cute little Marxists you.

116

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

It’s funny how the past is held against some candidates, but not all. George W’s coke dealers get a pass, but Obama political associates (however radical they may be) do not.

Funny how that shit works.

Well, whatever the status of George W’s “coke dealers” or your incurable stage 4 condition of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and refusing to compare the status of Barry O’s “coke dealers”, coke dealers aren’t good information on someone’s politics - association with a former domestic terrorist and current left-wing radical is.

Who Obama has worked with in Chicago can certainly inform us as to Obama’s politics, which is especially important since he has done so much to remain vague.

And, of course, we know it’s important - if it weren’t, Obama and his surrogates wouldn’t be trying so hard to hide the information from the public’s eyes: see the Annenberg Challenge.[/quote]

And Thunder, I believe you were correct in another post. The reason Obama doesn’t sound so great without a teleprompter is because he has to filter his far left beliefs, in order to sound moderate vocally.

117

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
A bunch of pointless bullshit

So insead of showing some fucking proof, you decide to make a straw man out of Fox, and give me op/ed pieces.

Dude - just admit you have nothing. Just admit you are talking out of your ass. I mean, everyone knows it already except you. [/quote]

The second two were op/eds.

The first was written statements by the college stating their ridiculous positions.

But I guess you just popped off without reading that, as usual.

118

To heck with it. I’m throwing an anti-Obama vote, for McCain.

119

See, RJ, this is why “Shit from 40 years ago” matters so much.

I’ve always been heavily interested in the 1960s counterculture movement, and I have mixed ideals about the Weathermen and their ilk.

I would most likely have been supportive of movements like the SDS and the Yippies. I’ve said before also, had I been a black man living back in the 50’s and 60’s I probably would have been one of the most militant guys around, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I was a black panther given the severe oppression that blacks were under back then.

However, the Weathermen took it too far, in my opinion. I understand where they were going- when one is convinced that they are in a protracted struggle with a much more powerful enemy, they will turn to guerilla, or in this case, urban guerilla tactics in order to prove their point, i.e. the IRA.

The killing of government agents at a time like the late 60’s may have seemed worthwhile and necessary for them. I’m not saying I would support them, but given the period it doesn’t surprise me what they did. If nothing else, he stood squarely against his government when they were doing the most terribe and fucked up things in our history. Had I been alive, I may have secretly cheered when a bomb went off at a draft office… sometimes force must be met with force.

That all being said, I don’t care about Obama’s affiliation with Ayers. He was radical in his youth, but turned himself in and has done his penalties.

Quite obviously, I’m to the far left myself, especially socially, so I don’t know why you would think I’d be so upset about this Thunder.

(As far as not releasing the records yet, they were being released last week, and it was put off because of didactions that needed to be made in regards to personnel matters and private info. Sounds like a standard OPRA request to me.)

120

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
A bunch of pointless bullshit

So insead of showing some fucking proof, you decide to make a straw man out of Fox, and give me op/ed pieces.

Dude - just admit you have nothing. Just admit you are talking out of your ass. I mean, everyone knows it already except you.

The second two were op/eds.

The first was written statements by the college stating their ridiculous positions.

But I guess you just popped off without reading that, as usual. [/quote]

This is what you said:

But it’s ok for every Republican candidate to make a speach during election year at Bob Jones University, where they still hate blacks and Catholics (and make no bones about it) ?

I read what you wrote. And you come up short on the proof as in the stuff from Bob Jones actually says they have people of all races at their school. Did YOU read what you googled, copied and pasted?

Just admit you are talking out of your ass because you hate republicans, and you will swallow every little drop of the koolaid simply because of your hatred.

I’m still looking for the overt, “…and makes no bones about it” hatred of blacks. Do the black kids that go there know how much they are hated? ow can they even allow blacks if they are hated so overtly? Are the blacks just that stupid?