Dsouza vs Ayers Debate at Dartmouth- Live(or tape)

Cliffs?

Obama ghost writer and traitor Bill Ayers knows what a radical terrorist can do with a weapon. I'm glad he knows what's best for the rest of us.

quote:

---

Ayers

---

Is this the "guy from the neighborhood" ?!!! The pal that wrote the books for the charlatan in the white house? It's sad that our kids are so F'KD !

quote:

---

I hope D'Souza has the balls to ask Ayers about his terrorist activities.

---

He brought it up earlier, but didn't make it THE topic.

Ayers just said libertarians were for corporations buying political favors.

What a fricking moron.

He opened with a joke about deciding that metal detectors wouldn't be required for the audience but would be for the speakers.

Upvote.

Thanks for the link.

I cannot stand Ayers, but this has been a pretty damn good debate.

Queer means odd.

Homosexuals are about. 5 percent of the world population, probably not that much, which means homoexuals are odd.

Or queer


I love how you think everyone should be made to follow
tje homosexual agendas evrry dorection.

quote:

---

My point was, it's weird to see the word "queer" thrown around so much in PC land...and zero fricks were given that it was said.

---

Yep, kinda like the n word when a dark skinned fella says it. Nothing to see here, move along.

I disagree strongly. I really was hoping to see someone put the arrogant Ayers in his place, and I was hoping this guy D'Souza would do it.

Ayers came off much more intelligent, although his arguments were loaded with fallacies. he kept mentioning straw men, but he created much more of his own that did D'Souza. Ayers was also calmer and seemingly more rational.

This brings me to D'Souza. I don't know anything about him except that he recently produced a documentary film critical of Obama. Boy was he frustrating. I'm certain I could have given Ayers a much better debate than he did, as could many here on this board. He missed so many opportunities!

I would have not let Ayers get away with his simplification and vilification of free markets, nor his misqualification and straw man arguments of disenfranchisement. He would not have been allowed to claim that only radicals have pushed for the betterment of American society, or that they were purely noble while the old canard that big business is purely evil. It's easy enough to decry the corrupting influence of money on politics, but the solution is usually worse than the problem and he had no suggested solution. Furthermore, Haliburton doesn't have a fraction of the influence of labor unions, green energy, and trial lawyers.