Ammo For Sale

« « Ice, ice, baby | Home | Open carry is legal in quite a few places » »

Euphemisms

participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements = bombed stuff?

13 Responses to “Euphemisms”

  1. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    So, by this standard it would be fair to say that “General Curtis LeMay participated passionately in urban redevelopment in Japan in the mid-1940s.”

  2. Metulj Says:

    As much as the Right wants this one to have legs, it doesn’t. It requires a particular type of knowledge of American history and the ability to equate “sat on the board of a non-profit” with to “ideological soulmates.”

    McCain WAS one of the Keating 5.

  3. Rustmeister Says:

    They’ll say anything to keep this from getting the light it so desperately needs.

    He didn’t just sit on a board, he sat in the dudes home to announce his run for State office. Ok, he probably stood to announce that.

  4. Dad Says:

    After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised “poor judgment”.

  5. Dad Says:

    The Keating consisted of 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. Three of the Democrats found guilty. McCain and John Glenn were not. Oh and by the way Glenn is an advisor to Obama but I guess that is OK

  6. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    They’re already scrapping the Ayers attack angle. If there was any “there” there, the McCain camp would be using it a lot more.

    I guess I don’t understand the appeal of this sort of hitman politics–what, I’m supposed to believe Obama is secretly a terrorist? Yawn…

    I have all the reason in the world not to vote for him, this sort of thing just makes the rightwing swiftboat team seem daft. Maybe if they hadn’t blown their wads early on with other dumb shit, like the “he’s not really a citizen” nonsense or the “he’s a Muslim” (like that’s a crime) malarkey.

  7. Metulj Says:

    Dad:

    So you see my point. Furthermore, Ronald Reagan and Walter Annenburg were close friends. Walter Annenburg gave $50 million to Ayers. Does this mean that Ronald Reagan, by associating with Walter Annenburg, a man who gives aid to Ayers, is complicit in giving Ayers aid because Reagan also gave Annenburg money along the line too? I needn’t remind folks that all of the those pictures of that bastard Rumsfeld shaking hands with various mass murdering fuckers and the liberal attack that the neocons are all in cahoots and should head to the Hague, because of those associations gets more and more credence with every word trying to link Obama to a lefty college professor who blew some shit up during a time when A LOT of shit was getting blown up.

    It is race to the bottom horseshit and I mean ‘race’ in the sense of there are people getting there a lot faster than others.

  8. Manish Says:

    Only one of the Keating 5 is running for President. I would think twice before bringing up the issue of ethically challenged advisor’s to Presidential candidates.

  9. tgirsch Says:

    Say, Kissinger has associated with more than his fair share of terrorists in his time, and a lot more directly than Obama has…

  10. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    metulj, tgirsh,

    As manish has pointed out, neither Annenburg nor Kissinger are running for president.

    However, to metulj’s point I certainly would (and do) hold Annenburg’s judgement to be piss poor. Ayers should have been tried and convicted of treason, receiving the death penalty. Ayers should be persona non grata. I would also argue that one could reasonably suspect Reagan’s judgement in associating with Annenburg over this issue, though I would say that the more “degrees of seperation” you have, the less culpability you have. Thus Reagan’s culpability is less than Obama’s since Reagan has one degree of seperation whereas Obama has direct association.

    As for Kissinger, while it may have been politically expediant to help people like OBL fight a much worse enemy, any American who would even think of working along side OBL now, or in the future, for any reason, should be held in nothing but contempt and scorn.

  11. Dan Says:

    I wonder what these people would say to abortion clinic bombings? I mean, sounds like to me bombings are a legitimate form of political dissent.

  12. Manish Says:

    As manish has pointed out, neither Annenburg nor Kissinger are running for president.

    What’s amusing in all this is that in the rush to smear Obama, you are in the process smearing a lot of Republicans. Annenberg gave $50 million to Ayers, following the logic this would suggest that Annenberg gave $50 million to a terrorist and thus Reagan was palling around with someone who gave $50 million to a terrorist.

  13. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Yeah, and I find YAG’s degrees of separation argument pretty funny, considering the number of people Ronnie Ray-gun had one degree of separation from in his administration who found themselves under indictment for all sorts of things, including ties to people dealing in (you guessed it) terrorism related shenanigans (arms for hostages ring a bell?).

    The argument remains on its face ridiculous–are we REALLY supposed to think Obama is some sort of terrorist? If not…then what? Somebody sympathetic to terrorists? Huh?

    Whatever–it’s a silly argument and a sign of desperation. I’m not really happy about the fact that Obama’s going to win, but I can’t say I’m all that surprised if this is the best the Rove squad can come up with.