On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:00:00 -0700, Bill Vanek <
bilv...@invalid.com>
I think all of it represents clear, rational thinking.
It is true that smears directed against Obama have no bearing on his
worth as a candidate, but they do reflect negatively on the
credibility of those doing the smearing.
If you have two candidates running for office and you have no
meaningful information about A (Obama), but information that B
(McCain, Palin, the GOP) is a cheat and a liar, it makes sense to vote
for A. It is the best you can do with limited information.
Seems pretty rational to me!
And as far as Ayers goes ... it is true that the government defines
terrorism as any illegal act designed to influence government action,
and under that definition Ayers was a terrorist.
But Ayers seems very sane compared to folks blowing up airliners full
of people they don't know. Planting bombs and then giving lots of
warning so the affected buildings could be evacuated ... gee, it
almost seems like one is trying to avoid killing folks while still
destroying stuff and making a statement.
Certainly not behavior I approve of and certainly a major felony, but
quite a bit different than the folks playing with airplanes and
skyscrapers and shoes with explosive insoles and PETN in their
underwear.
To judge that one kind of terrorist is worse than another ... also
seems pretty rational to me!
DFC