Kathy Bowdin was one of the Weather Underground terrorists who robbed a Brinks caro f $1.6 M, and in the process murdered 2 cops and a security guard, leaving I believe 8 kids to grow up without a Dad. What is she doing now? She is a professor at Columbia.

Her boss, terrorist Bill Ayers, is a professor of education (teaching future teachers, which is just great).

Wesleyan University honors convicted cop-killer Abu Mumia Jamal by letting him give a commencment address via video link. The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him.

Imagine for a second, if Holy Cross college honored an abortion clinic bomber by making him a professor. Can you IMAGINE the media reaction?

Spence, PaulS, someone please explain this to me, cuz I don't get it. I just don't get it.

free market Jimbo, parents can pull the funding and we can send our kids elsewhere

free market Jimbo, parents can pull the funding and we can send our kids elsewhere

Agreed. But I didn't ask whether or not these liberal schools have the right to do this. I want to know why liberals, the self-appointed gurus of peace and compassion, do this? Why do they think it's a good idea?

What was the conversation like in the faculty room, when it was discussed whether or not to hire this woman? I'd love to see a transcript of that conversation.

Of course they have the right to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course they have the right to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed. But WHY do they think it's a good idea? I mean, the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to do what they do, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do...

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was never that simple, ever, in any country. It used to be almost that simple in this country, but things have changed over time, especially in the last few years. It's about to be that you can't even choose not to buy health insurance anymore without paying a penalty.

how can an American President fly around the country preaching and lecturing about "shared sacrafice" and threatening all sorts of doom and gloom over budget cuts yet continue to plan lavish vacations and Whitehouse parties at extraordinary tax payer's expense?

because- right and wrong is not measured by any moral compass but rather by which side of the idealogical fence you happen to fall or reside :)

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You certainly haven't been keeping track of the daily intrusion into Americans' privacy, people that have been arrested for talking poorly about the government or people that have been labeled at part of terrorist organizations because they are outspoken political activists, even though they've never broken a law.

We're free to do as we choose and say what we want... as long as we do not upset the government's status quo.

free market Jimbo, parents can pull the funding and we can send our kids elsewhere

The market is not that free anymore. With Federal "investment" in all levels of education accompanied by its mandatory regulations, parents are, without their consent, funding schools their kids don't attend and to which they would not choose to have them attend. The "market" function of paying for education has mostly become a thing of the past. Private schools of higher education are few and far between.

You certainly haven't been keeping track of the daily intrusion into Americans' privacy, people that have been arrested for talking poorly about the government or people that have been labeled at part of terrorist organizations because they are outspoken political activists, even though they've never broken a law.

We're free to do as we choose and say what we want... as long as we do not upset the government's status quo.

We are only free to exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed "rights" so long as the Federal Government allows it and can regulate it.

Because in this country we are free to do as we choose, are free to say what we want and free to go where we want. It's that simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are dodging my original question, which was WHY do they do it. I did not ask if they have the right to do it. Miss Porters School can hire a registered sex offender to monitor the showers in the girls locker room. That there isn't a law against that, doesn't mean that it's not stupid and immoral.

I can't answer that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But yes it's immoral.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kathy Bowdin was one of the Weather Underground terrorists who robbed a Brinks caro f $1.6 M, and in the process murdered 2 cops and a security guard, leaving I believe 8 kids to grow up without a Dad. What is she doing now? She is a professor at Columbia.

Her boss, terrorist Bill Ayers, is a professor of education (teaching future teachers, which is just great).

Wesleyan University honors convicted cop-killer Abu Mumia Jamal by letting him give a commencment address via video link. The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him.

Imagine for a second, if Holy Cross college honored an abortion clinic bomber by making him a professor. Can you IMAGINE the media reaction?

Spence, PaulS, someone please explain this to me, cuz I don't get it. I just don't get it.

The Progressive agenda, which emanated from our universities and colleges, is to change the status of the individual from a sovereign with unalienable rights granted by a higher power and guaranteed by a Constitution, to a product of the State who is functionally "free" to do what the State grants. To accomplish this, power must be centralized rather than dispersed. All elements, including religion and individualism, that would diminish the power of the State, must be marginalized and eventually eliminated. To be happy, all elements of discord must be eradicated from our collective existence. The disorder of individual competitions and conflicts can only be solved by allegiance to a unitary central power administered by experts who know best what we need and have the power to grant us those needs.

Radicals such as Ayers and Jamal, etc., are transitional tools which enable Progressives to destroy "outdated" American principles and Constitutional governance. They too will, eventually, be eliminated.

I agree with you Jim - but I think the shocking thing is that she was paroled in the first place... isn't her crime punishable by death in some states?

Why do they do it?

Because they can, but probably more so because they know it will bring in donor money from those eqaully corrupt cronies that bought their degrees from similarly operating "tools" of higher education.

When a college begins to offer classes in subjects that will serve the student no good in the real world, and hires teachers and (so-called) professors to spew their worthless rhetoric to our children, that college has literelly sunk to the bottom of the academic food chain.

It becomes the "Jerry Springer" of academia and a laughing stock amongst those in truly legitimate schools.

Unfortunately, with the government sticking its hands into how a school is run and what the school MUST offer its students, more and more "Jerry Springers" are popping up year after year, so that eventually a college degree will be as valuable as the last roll of toilet paper and cost as much as a Mercedes!

I agree with you Jim - but I think the shocking thing is that she was paroled in the first place... isn't her crime punishable by death in some states?

She didn't pull the trigger, she drove the getaway truck, which I believe was a U-Haul truck. That truck encountered a police roadblock. She, the driver, got out with her hands up. As the police were tellling her that they were about to open the back of the truck, the terrorists jumped out of the back of the truck. Her terrorist pals had automatic weapons, the cops had revolvers, 2 cops died as a result. The security guard, the 3rd victim, was killed earlier at the scene of the crime.

I sincerely wish she had gotten the death penalty, because (1) she deserved it, and (2) we wouldn't be having a conversation about whether or not she should be teaching at Columbia.

It's worth noting that this group was part of the Weather Underground, which Bill Ayers (political mentor of Obama) was a leader of.

.

It becomes the "Jerry Springer" of academia and a laughing stock amongst those in truly legitimate schools.

!

I don't know. I don't see anyone claiming that Columbia is a "laughing stock", I don't see alumni donations to the endowment fund drying up...And that's precisely what I don't get. I don't get why 99% of the population isn't outraged.

This is the same school that invited the President of Iran to speak, yet they claim that Catholics like me are intolerant of homosexuals?

My Mom got her masters degree at Columbia, and she is horrified and embarassed. My Mom was not a typical Columbia alumni, spending the majority of her life as a middle-class housewife.

Perhaps hiring murderers to educate will add diversity to the curriculums. After all, what has caused their anti-social behavior needs to have its say. The oppressive nature of traditional American culture is no doubt a causative factor in rebellion against it. Providing students with the fresh approach that murderers and radicals will give can be perceived as a complement to their education.

I have not done the research to see if they were convicted, served the time, etc. Perhaps you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned or have an arm cut off for theft, oh wait I think that perhaps I have confused you with Islamic fundamentalists.
Perhaps we should make flagburning a crime or speaking out against the president, I will defend your right to do either and my right to shun you if I feel you deserve it or support you if I think you are correct.
Having said that and worked in a college enviorment I will admit that most of the adults there do not fit into the old adage that if you are young and conservative you have no soul, but if you are old and liberal you are a fool.

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

I have not done the research to see if they were convicted, served the time, etc. Perhaps you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned or have an arm cut off for theft, oh wait I think that perhaps I have confused you with Islamic fundamentalists.
Perhaps we should make flagburning a crime or speaking out against the president, I will defend your right to do either and my right to shun you if I feel you deserve it or support you if I think you are correct.
Having said that and worked in a college enviorment I will admit that most of the adults there do not fit into the old adage that if you are young and conservative you have no soul, but if you are old and liberal you are a fool.

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

You want your kids taught by someone who dedicated most of her adult life to carrying out violent acts against white people who played by the rules and succeeded and who hurt no one?

This woman was a known terrorist. She pled guilty to the charges in this case, and was granted parole after 20 years.

"Perhaps you believe that anyone who commits adultery should be stoned..."

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. Because I said adultery is the same as plotting to blow up innocent civilians, right? I said adultery is the same thing as terrorism, right? Adultery is the same murdering multiple police officers during the course of a robbery? Yes, I claimed that those are the same things, right?

You stated that you did no research on whether or not this woman is guilty of this crime. OK. What reserch did you do, to conclude that I would believe that adulterers deserve to be stoned to death? Please explan, we are all waiting for you to share that research.

Please respond to the things that I actually say. Please try and refrain from putting radical, idiotic words in my mouth.

This is what the thoughtless and brainwashed do. I say that terrorists who kill multiple police officers have no business teaching our kids at prestigious universities, and you somehow, somehow, interpret that to mean that I think adulterers should be stoned to death.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty is what thoughtless people do when they have lost the argument, but aren't adult enough to admit it. I'll give you credit, at least you didn't call me a racist.

You worked at a college? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked. Too bad while you were there, you never learned how to have an honest discussion.

Kathy Bowdin was one of the Weather Underground terrorists who robbed a Brinks caro f $1.6 M, and in the process murdered 2 cops and a security guard, leaving I believe 8 kids to grow up without a Dad. What is she doing now? She is a professor at Columbia.

Her boss, terrorist Bill Ayers, is a professor of education (teaching future teachers, which is just great).

Wesleyan University honors convicted cop-killer Abu Mumia Jamal by letting him give a commencment address via video link. The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him.

Imagine for a second, if Holy Cross college honored an abortion clinic bomber by making him a professor. Can you IMAGINE the media reaction?

Spence, PaulS, someone please explain this to me, cuz I don't get it. I just don't get it.
Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

I'm sure Jim was listening to some right wing conservative radio program or tv show where they were using this as some sort if propaganda and Jim popped a gasket. ;).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.

Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).

Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?

Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.

It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.



Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

-spence

right...criminals sharing their criminal experiences to "help" others....ignore their history....I bet it's tough for those who had family members killed or mamed to ignore their history:uhuh:


William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (ncluding police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Obama and Ayers had a very close relationship...Obama has many "mentors" and none of them seem to like America very much and all seem to share radical leftist-marxist(self-described) views which they've spent their lives "sharing"......


I'll agree that they're "pretty intelligent"...but then again....so are most serial killers and many other criminals(regardless of their history)...so I'm not sure how that matters

It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.

Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).

Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?

Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.

It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.



yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

"what's the point of this thread?"

Ah yes. When you know a conservative is correct, you respond with "so what?"

"How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?"

This news came out this past week.

"for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?"

Now THAT, Spence, is world-class spin. You neglected to point out that she assisted in the murder of 2 police officers and a security guard. Are details, shmee-tails.

I have no problem with parole and rehabilitation. But that's not the same thing as HONORING someone with a post educating children.

"I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone."

Spence, please point out where I said Bill Ayers was a murderer? I did say he was, by his own admission, a leader of the weather Underground, which did murder people.

"Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "

I said he spoke via a video feed, and that is true. Are you literally making up this stuff to refute me?

"Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread"

Yes. Violent, liberal radicals, who are still glorified by your side.

"all appear pretty intelligent "

Based on WHAT? How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know Abu Mumia Jamal is intelligent, did you give him an IQ test on death row?


"that you casually throw out the T word"

OK. So according to you, the Weather Underground were not terrorists? Please explain why not.

I don't use that word casually. It is you who refuses to use that word when it appropeiately applies to those who share your ideology.

One of your moset deranged diatribes ever, and that is saying something.

I'm sure Jim was listening to some right wing conservative radio program or tv show where they were using this as some sort if propaganda and Jim popped a gasket. ;).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah, yes. You can't refute anything I said, so you hurl baseless insults. Kudos.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.



And according to Spence, I am "casually" using the "t" word (terrorist). Spence doesn't feel that those who bomg public buildings to further a political cause, are terrorists.

Look the word up in the dictionary Spence.

he's actually provided the explanation to your question quite nicely which contiues to lend creedence your mental disorder contention but the "liberal" term in any historical sense of the word hardly applies to today's left...I can't call them liberals anymore...it's unfair to the word:uhuh:

America's left and democrat party is following and promoting a Progressive agenda which Detbuch has concisely pointed out....is the very definition of anti-American

4 more years.....

yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

They used to be controlled by the Constitution. But now that they have subverted it--no one.

Of course, their intentions are good. So don't worry.

yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?

My first response--"no one"--was off-hand, a bit facetious, but not completely off the mark. The real answer would be that the "controllers" and those "who want to be controlled" are controlling each other in a symbiotic relationship. As I've mentioned before, the progressives cannot escape the necessity of feeding the beast they have created. If they do, they both become extinct. The transfers of wealth, the ever-expanding "safety net," the promises of guaranteed security and comfort, of health care and unsustainable benefits, of jobs created by fiat rather than effort, of a social utopia, must be sustained, even if beyond reason or economic viability.

When Jim in CT keeps wondering why the left cannot recognize simple math in relation to the "economy" he doesn't recognize the life and death struggle to which the progressive movement has evolved. It is not about some mere recognition of simple math, it is about maintaining the perception that the progressive agenda "works." That it is ultimately beneficial more than is what they consider outmoded notions of individualism and self reliance and the restraints of the Constitution.

"Perception is reality" as a mode of conduct is a misapplication of relativity. Perception may be relative, but it is not reality. Relativity may explain why an object may be perceived to be standing still in relation to a viewer when in reality both the perceiver and the object are not standing still but are moving at the same pace in the same direction. The notion that perception is actually reality is saying that there is no such thing as reality in an objective sense. It is mostly a useless notion. One who will cross a busy intersection when for whatever personal "perception" he sees no cars may soon be perceiving his own funeral. Taken to its apogee, such a notion assumes the perceiver is God--"reality" is merely a creation of his perception.

But the notion is very useful in politics. At least in the nefarious practice of politics. The molding of mass perception is that method that used to be referred to as propaganda. That word was used a lot in much of the 20th century, especially during the "cold war" between Communism and the West. You don't hear the word used much anymore. Perhaps, the cold war is perceived to have been won. Or, perhaps, those engaging in it prefer not to call attention to the method. And if the media is complicit, or cowed into being called reactionary if it calls attention to it, the thought, or perception, of such a notion disappears.

So the symbiotic relation between the controllers and those who want to be controlled is facilitated by creating the perception that the controllers are constantly fighting for their underlings. That the negative economy, and the conflicts in society are problems they have inherited from a rapacious and oppressive past, but that there is and has been constant improvement due to their effort. And if those being controlled keep perceiving that things are getting better for them and the controllers are working hard at making it so, they will keep voting for them. If, however, there is a collapse, the votes will not be forthcoming. So it is necessary for the controllers to keep the controlled happy--or, at least, that they perceive they are happy.

And if such a time arrives that the perception is lost, and the reality of an unsustainable society becomes obvious, then do the controllers simply admit their error and go away? Or do we move on to a 1984ish or Brave New Worldish perception of reality.

William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (ncluding police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.



YO, SPENCE -

In light of what Scott posted, and in light iof the robbery that killed 2 cops and a security guard, let me ask you straight up...are the Weather Underground terrorists, or not?

You accused me of being "casual" in my using the terrorist label with these violent kooks. So please enlighten us...what is it that differentiates the Weather Underground from terrorists?

If those that bomb abortion clinincs are terrorists, and of course they are, I fail to see how the Weather Underground fails to meet the criteria. Please, don't keep that wisdom and knowledge to yourself...do the liberal thing, and share the wealth!

We're all ears, and are giddy with anticipation...

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.


Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...Spence, these people were motivated not only by the Vietnam War but also by their love and admiration of Communism, Marx and Lenin etc. which is very consistent in their rhetoric and writings, they allied with Cuba, North Vietnam, China and dreamt of and took action to presumably overthrow our system of government/Constitution and institute a communist/marxist form of government that they found preferrable(sounds a little too familiar)...which part of America did they not hate?..probably just the part where their rich parents were able to fund their radicalism and the freedom that America offered to express themselves I guess[/COLOR]

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters.

Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.[3]

With revolutionary positions characterized by Black liberation rhetoric,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and escape of Timothy Leary. The "Days of Rage", their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO).[4]

At an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969, the National Office attempted to persuade unaffiliated delegates not to endorse a takeover of SDS by Progressive Labor who had packed the convention with their supporters.[8] At the beginning of the convention, two position papers were passed out by the National Office leadership, one a revised statement of Klonksy's RYM manifesto, the other called "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows". The latter document outlined the position of the group that would become the Weathermen. It had been signed by Karen Ashley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Howie Machtinger, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd, and Steve Tappis. The document called for creating a clandestine revolutionary party.

"The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party will be impossible. A revolutionary mass movement is different from the traditional revisionist mass base of "sympathizers". Rather it is akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle."[9]

"Weatherman would shove the war down their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. 'Turn the imperialists' war into a civil war', in Lenin's words. And we were going to kick ass".

In July 1969, 30 members of Weatherman leadership traveled to Cuba and met with North Vietnamese representatives to gain from their revolutionary experience. The North Vietnamese requested armed political action in order to stop the U.S. Government's war in Vietnam. Subsequently, they accepted funding, training, recommendations on tactics and slogans from Cuba, and perhaps explosives as well.

The "Flint War Council," was a series of meetings of the Weather Underground Organization and associates in Flint, Michigan, that took place from 27–31 December 1969.[60] During these meetings, the decisions were made for the Weather Underground Organization to go underground [22] and to "engage in guerilla warfare against the U.S. government."[61] This decision was made in response to increased pressure from law enforcement,[62] and a belief that underground guerilla warfare was the best way to combat the U.S. government.[61]

On February 16, 1970 a nail bomb placed on a window ledge of the Park Police substation in the Upper Haight neighborhood of San Francisco exploded at 10:45 p.m. The blast killed police Sergeant Brian McDonnell. Law enforcement suspected the Weather Underground but was unable to prove conclusively that the organization was involved.[64] A second officer, Robert Fogarty, was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel. Secret federal grand juries were convened in 2001 and again in 2009 to re-open the Park Precinct cold case in an attempt to again tie WUO members Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Howie Machtinger and others to the deadly bombing.[65] Ultimately, it was concluded that members of the Black Liberation Army, whom WUO members affiliated with while underground, were responsible for not only this action but also the bombing of another police precinct in San Francisco as well as bombing the Catholic Church funeral services of the police officer killed in the Park Precinct bombing in the early summer of 1970.

probably not coincidentally, three members were killed the next month when a nail bomb that they were construction exploded in their safe house apartment

On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of a Non-Commissioned Officers’ (NCO) dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[2] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion.

An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed enough explosive to "level ... both sides of the street".

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

"it's worth noting that his (Ayers') actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America"

So what motivated him? It wasn't a desire to lead a violent revolt against the feds? .

"Had he (Ayers) been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way"

Also stupid and demonstrably false. I have said many times that those who bomb abortion clinics are clearly terrorists.

I look at things objectively Spence. It is you, not me, who is completely, 100% blinded by ideology.

LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"it's worth noting that his (Ayers') actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America"

So what motivated him? It wasn't a desire to lead a violent revolt against the feds? .

if you read anything about Ayers and his fellow travellers they were motivted by an intense dislike of the American form of government and Capitalism and "American Imperialism"...on and on...much the same rhetoric that enemies of America have used to this day...the Veitnam War was simply a vehical that they used to launch and further their agenda, recruiting and fuel for their rage....they intended "fundamental transformation" of the American system and decided that violent means were acceptable....they've since changed their "posture", but not their ideaology

"Had he (Ayers) been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way"

Also stupid and demonstrably false. I have said many times that those who bomb abortion clinics are clearly terrorists.

clearly, but Spence's ability to find excusable, acceptable or justified certain actions based on ideaology and completely overlook facts has him supposing that you do the same

I look at things objectively Spence. this is probably dangerous for any of us to state It is you, not me, who is completely, 100% blinded by ideology.

there is a lot that is revealing.....:uhuh:

Ms. Boudin has a fascinating Wiki page....


highlights.....


Her great-uncle was Louis B. Boudin, a Marxist theorist.

Her father, attorney Leonard Boudin, had represented such controversial clients as Judith Coplon, Fidel Castro, and Paul Robeson.[2] A National Lawyers Guild attorney, Leonard Boudin was the law partner of Victor Rabinowitz, himself counsel to numerous left-wing organizations.

1965, her last year at Bryn Mawr was spent studying in the Soviet Union. She was paid 75 rubles a month by the Soviet government and, according to her résumé, taught on a Soviet collective farm.


In the 1960s and 1970s, Boudin became heavily involved with the Weather Underground, along with Cathy Wilkerson, was a survivor of the 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, the premature detonation of a nail bomb that had been intended for a soldiers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.[3] Boudin was 27 at the time.

A declassified FBI report on foreign contacts of the Weather Underground Organization produced by the FBI’s Chicago Field Office reported that, "On February 10, 1976, a source in a position to possess such information advised that Leonard Boudin ... had indicated to a friend that Kathie [sic] was presently in Cuba."[citation needed] The law firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., provide legal representation for the Cuban government in the United States.

In 1981, when Kathy Boudin was 38 years old, she and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York. After Boudin dropped her infant son, Chesa, at a baby sitter's, she took the wheel of the getaway vehicle, a U-Haul truck.

She waited in a nearby parking lot as her heavily armed accomplices took another vehicle to a local mall where a Brinks truck was making a delivery. They confronted the guards and gunfire immediately broke out, severely wounding guard Joe Trombino and killing his co-worker, Peter Paige. The four then took $1.6 million in cash and met with Boudin.

An alert high-school student called the police after spotting the gang abandoning the getaway vehicle and entering the U-Haul. A police officer spotted and pulled over the U-Haul, but they could see only Boudin in the driver's seat. Boudin then got out of the cab, and raised her hands.

The police officers who caught them testified that Boudin, feigning innocence, pleaded with them to put down their guns and got them to drop their guard; Boudin said she remained silent, that the officers relaxed spontaneously. After the police lowered their weapons, six of the men in the back of the truck armed with automatic weapons came out of the back of the truck, surprising the four police officers, one of whom, Waverly Brown, was killed instantly. Boudin and David Gilbert, a Weatherman radical and the father of Boudin's infant son, allegedly acted as decoys as well as getaway drivers: The Brinks robbers the police were searching for were all from the Black Liberation Army and drove a red car. Officer Edward O'Grady lived long enough to empty his revolver, but as he reloaded, he was shot several times with an M16. Ninety minutes later, he died in hospital. The other two officers escaped with only minor injuries. The occupants of the U-Haul scattered, some climbing into another getaway car, others carjacking a nearby motorist while Boudin attempted to flee on foot. An off-duty corrections officer, Michael J. Koch, apprehended her shortly after the shootout. When she was arrested, Boudin gave her name as Barbara Edson.


The majority of the defendants received three consecutive sentences of 25 years to life, making them eligible for parole in the year 2058. Boudin hired Leonard Weinglass to defend her. Weinglass, a law partner of Boudin's father, arranged for a plea bargain and Boudin pled guilty to one count of felony murder and robbery, in exchange for one twenty-year to life sentence.


Boudin and Gilbert's son Chesa Boudin was adopted by former Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn

She is presently an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of Social Work, a controversial appointment.




she sure has some experiences to share:uhuh:

YO, SPENCE - You accused me of being "casual" in my using the terrorist label with these violent kooks. So please enlighten us...what is it that differentiates the Weather Underground from terrorists?

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

they spent much of their adult lives as members of a terrorist organization that clearly stated their goals.....they did bomb, people did die and sustain injuries as a result of their organization and provocation...that you can dismiss this is very disturbing.. what you continue to spout in their defense is their after the fact excuses....it's not coincidental that they found refuge in higher education....which is the point of this thread:uhuh:

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing.
Quite relevant to this discussion and Monday's attack on Boston...

The Weather Underground Organization has been talked about quite a few times in the news regarding previous bombings on US soil.

The Weathermen were referred to during their time and in legacy as terrorist. Whether bombing to create fear (or as you downplay it, "in violent protest") or bombing to maim, they are still terrorist acts. One action does not mean the other is excluded from the definition.

Terrorism, by it's very definition, is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
Terrorism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism)

So, please explain how the Weathermen's planning bombings of government buildings, the CA state senator's office and banks as retaliation for Laos, Hanoi, Vietnam and others were not acts of terror.

The entire purpose driving the actions of the WUO was proclaimed by them as "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism".
Weatherman (organization) (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Weatherman_%28organization%29.html)

"The destruction of US imperialism"... boy, does that sound awfully familiar to current day terrorists.

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making...

To think you can set off bombs merely for protest and that eventually someone wouldn't be injured, or killed, is worse than naïve. It is, as you say, radical and violent. One can change, however, and "grow up" which is what we are supposed to assume these people did.

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing.

The comparison is not to the immediate physical results, but to the eventual purpose.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Ayers, himself, questions the legality of what they did, convicted or not, and the "robbery at that", for which Boudin served her time, shortened through the grace of a plea bargain, involved being a willing accomplice to killing and maiming.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

And what would that recent work be? Is it essentially the same work as that of their "misguided youth" but with the cover of academic respectability. Do they still want to bring down imperialist, capitalist America, and transform it into a socialist, Marxist system? Ayers still "admires" Marx. What are they teaching under cover of liberalism? Have they merely transformed from naïve, violent radicals to respectable mainstream progressives that have found a home in a fellow-traveler ideology which has more peacefully and effectively transformed this country in the direction they wish to go? And, like most "controllers," have they found life richer and more influential at the top of the heap than the bottom? And yes, the point of this thread is the connection of academia to the growth of progressivism. It is the original home of that movement and its greatest proponent and facilitator.

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

And you are being played by an older movement, despite your seeming dislike of oldness and infatuation of new, "smart" stuff. You seem to view progressivism as something new (perhaps the title mesmerizes you) when it is older now in this country than the Constitution was when the progressives began their assault on our founding. But it does evolve. It is becoming more dictatorial than the original progressives intended. Or maybe they did intend it so.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

That is the nature of faith. Lack of faith, lack of belief in something enduring, makes strength irrelevant in a shifting world of relativity.

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

"I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions aside from some of their own who apparently didn't practice safe bomb making"

They planted bombs, Spence. They planted multiple bombs in pubilc buildings, as part of an attempt to violently overthrow the federal government. If those bombs didn't go off because of their own ineptitude, you give them credit for that?

"but to compare it to modern terrorism, where mass pain is inflicted often upon innocent's just isn't quite right...it's not the same thing."

In case you missed it from the last point...the only reason why they didn't kill people, is because their bombs didn't go off. Their intent was to kill people in furtherance of a political objective. Intent is what defines a terrorist, not just the resulting violence. Jeffrey Dahmer was not a terrorist. The Boston Strangler was not a terrorist.

"What's the point of the entire thread?"

Since your reading comprehension is off, I'll repeat. My intent was to ask why elite liberal universities honor murderers (like Bowdin and Abu Mumia Jamal) and heckle conservatives who have not hurt anyone(like Antonin Scalia and Ann Coulter).

Your response was that it's not an honor to make someone a professor at Columbia, and that the Weather Underground aren't all that bad because their bombs didn't go off through no intent of their own, and that Abu Mumia Jamal didn't get a fair trial in your opinion.

"I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night."

I asked the question of whether or not mass murderers *(and those, like Ayers, who specifically set out to be mass-murderers) are fit to teach our children. I think that's a valid question. You disagree, presumably because nothing that a liberal does is worth scrutinizing.

"You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax "

OK. Spence, I contend that Bill Ayers hosted a political fundraiser for Obama (very early in Obama's political career) in his home. Is that true or is that a hoax? You tell us, please...

So, please explain how the Weathermen's planning bombings of government buildings, the CA state senator's office and banks as retaliation for Laos, Hanoi, Vietnam and others were not acts of terror.

.

Let me answer for Spence...

"Because even though the Weather Underground's actions are precisely consistent with any rational definition of terrorism, if I conceded they were terrorists, that would be assigning blame to those on my side, and I cannot bring myself to do that."

Spence, you are precious...

. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions
-spence

You've brought this up a couple of times here. You are sayng that Ayers isn't the moral equivalent of a homicidal maniac, because he didn't kill anyone. Butthe only reason he didn't kill anyone, is because his bombs (planted with the intent to kill) didn't go off.

Do you really believe that?

Let's put that in context of what happened in Boston. If that murderer did everything the same...formulating his plan, research, decision-making, assembling the bomb, planting the bomb...but the bomb didn't detonate because he forgot to connect 2 wires...does that make him less evil, less of a homocisial maniac, more fit to teach your children, than we view that person today?

If all that matters is the body count (and intent isn't pertinent), what do you think of Ted Kennedy? He has just as many dead bodies in his wake as James Earl Ray (who murdered Martin Luther King), so do you view those 2 men the same way? In your eyes, are they equally fit to teach your children?

In terms of moral culpability, it obviously doesn't matter that the Weather Underground didn't kill anyone. The act of planting the bombs, with the intent they had, is what makes them homicidal terrorists. Not the results...The outcome speaks to their ineptitude, not to their moral culpability.

This is too precious...when a few weather Underground terrorists were killed making bombs (lots of dynamite mixed with nails for the bombs), there are reports that the bombs were to be used on 2 targets. An NCO dance at the Army base in Fort Dix NJ, and at the Columbia University library.

Why is this hysterical? Because one ofthe terrorists who survived that bomb blast was Kathy Bowdin, who participated in mass murder during the Brinks armored car robbery. Where does she work now?

Wait for it...Columbia University.

One can only wonder...if Kathy Bowdin had successully blown up the Columbia library (say a few dead kids and faculty) would the university still have made her a professor? Maybe they would have only made her an adjunct professor instead of tenured? Or maybe killing a few cops makes up for trying to blow up part of the university she now works for...

Unbelievable...

Greenwich Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion)

they we're building nail bombs when they blew themselves up and were suspected in previous nail bombings....I'm no bomb expert but I think you build a nail bomb to cause maximum casualties????

Spence's definition of "non-violent" protest I guess....


similar rhetoric to today's terrorists
similar tactics
similar targets


they would have been really have been something I bet if they had the internets for "pretty smart" research instead of having to travel to Cuber for bomb making training and funding from our enemies :uhuh:

I'm pretty sure that the American who Obama ordered need to get "two in the hat" via drone had not actually killed anyone himself either...he was just motivating others in unrelated, non-terrorist workplace violence and stuff

In case you missed it from the last point...the only reason why they didn't kill people, is because their bombs didn't go off. Their intent was to kill people in furtherance of a political objective. Intent is what defines a terrorist, not just the resulting violence. Jeffrey Dahmer was not a terrorist. The Boston Strangler was not a terrorist.

Oh I do believe that bombs did indeed go off. They didn't kill people because the targets were warned in advance.

If your intent was to kill people, why would you warn them?

Since your reading comprehension is off, I'll repeat. My intent was to ask why elite liberal universities honor murderers (like Bowdin and Abu Mumia Jamal) and heckle conservatives who have not hurt anyone(like Antonin Scalia and Ann Coulter).

As I said before, who's being "honored"? In Boudin's case it sounds like she just has a job. Granted it's at a good school but does her effort over the past 25 years out weight the previous 10?

Ayers appears to have really dedicated his life to positive works.

In the case of Jamal it was the students, apparently enough of who think he didn't get a fair trial and admire him for not giving up and working to help others from prison.

I asked the question of whether or not mass murderers *(and those, like Ayers, who specifically set out to be mass-murderers) are fit to teach our children. I think that's a valid question. You disagree, presumably because nothing that a liberal does is worth scrutinizing.

None of these people were "mass murders".

OK. Spence, I contend that Bill Ayers hosted a political fundraiser for Obama (very early in Obama's political career) in his home. Is that true or is that a hoax? You tell us, please...

For once please do your own research, there's plenty of information online that debunks all these claims.

-spence

For once please do your own research, there's plenty of information online that debunks all these claims. -spence

it's obvious that you either haven't read much yourself or you are simply nuts....what these three "share" it that they are or were violent left wing extremists......they are defended, admired, excused and "honored" for their work as left wing extremists and not whatever they've been doing post-imprisonment or escape thanks to good fortune or circumstance....Ayers is an icon in his radical little neighborhood in Chicago for his rage against the system and celebrated for his slipperiness, Obama types want to cozy up to him at cocktail parties not because of his work in education but because he's a folk hero to the radical leftists and represents what they aspire to although most have put on a suit and learned verbal jousting and invaded academia, law and government these days but they share the same ideaology that had Ayers and his friends declaring a state of war against the US


do build nail bombs because you really don't intend to hurt anyone?

but because he's a folk hero to the radical leftists and represents what they aspire to although most have put on a suit and learned verbal jousting and invaded academia, law and government these days but they share the same ideaology that had Ayers and his friends declaring a state of war against the US


do build nail bombs because you really don't intend to hurt anyone?
I addressed this quite directly and with cited points. But as is usual, spence will ignore my post because his position is not defendable - or he'll reply with some quip or vague spin that has nothing to do with my comments.

Oh I do believe that bombs did indeed go off. They didn't kill people because the targets were warned in advance.

If your intent was to kill people, why would you warn them?



As I said before, who's being "honored"? In Boudin's case it sounds like she just has a job. Granted it's at a good school but does her effort over the past 25 years out weight the previous 10?

Ayers appears to have really dedicated his life to positive works.

In the case of Jamal it was the students, apparently enough of who think he didn't get a fair trial and admire him for not giving up and working to help others from prison.



None of these people were "mass murders".



For once please do your own research, there's plenty of information online that debunks all these claims.

-spence

"If your intent was to kill people, why would you warn them? "

Can you please support that?

What about the bombs that went off in the house where the terrorists lived, killing some of them? The police found evidence that the intended targets were Fort Dix (army base) and Columbia University. No evidence that they were going to forewarn their intended victims that I know of.

How about the 2 cops and the security guard that Miss Bowdin helped murder in the Brinks robbery? Did she warn them, but they failed to heed the warning?

"Granted it's at a good school but does her effort over the past 25 years out weight the previous 10?"

I have no idea, since you didn't podt details of all the "god things" she has done in th elast 10 years.

"As I said before, who's being "honored"? In Boudin's case it sounds like she just has a job"

A 'job' for an ex-felon is picking up dog crap or scrubbing toilets. A full professorship is an honor. Spence, you go ahead and ask those Columbia professors just have a 'job', or if they feel their is priviledge and prestige bestowed upon them.

"Ayers appears to have really dedicated his life to positive works."

I can only presume you are referring to the fact that Ayers has hosted fundraisers. You are forgetting about the planting of bombs and preaching violence as a means to a political end. Details, shme-tails.

"None of these people were "mass murders".

Kathy Bowdin is. And Bill Ayers is not, only because he failed to achieve hsi stated goal, a goal which he tried very hard to carry out.

You are reaching new lows, here. Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service, and nothing more. There's nothing else on his resume, Spence?

Unbelievable.

do you build nail bombs because you really don't intend to hurt anyone?

What about that, Spence? If you have no intention of hurting anyone, why make the effort to put nails into the bombs? Why use projectiles?

I guess when Ayers arranged for the nails to be put in the bombs, that was just an example of the "poitive public service" that Ayers has dedicated his life to.

Ayers appears to have really dedicated his life to positive works.



In which, we see support for why I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

I can't get away from that statement, i just can't.

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:biglaugh: rimshot


I usually stay out of here but that just struck me funny even as heartbroken I am being upset about the bombing


It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university


ok, go back to insulting each other now :hs:

:biglaugh:
It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university


It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time of transition in the hallowed ivory halls of academe as well as the rest of society. But especially in academe. The sixties counter-culture demanded rapid change in what they saw as a backward immoral society that was moving too slowly, if at all, (in their eyes) toward social, racial, and gender equality and away from what they saw as imperialistic war. America, for them, was stuck in a very bad place. And the youth learned from the sociology and liberal arts instructors that we were a bad, oppressive, nation whose history was steeped in blood, slavery, and societal oppression that cried for liberation. And, though they were given examples of and instruction on more egalitarian solutions based, yes, on Marxian forms of socialism, they were told that change, revolution, could only come from within. But the schools were still halfway mired in the 1950's post war leave-it-to-Beaver-father-knows-best culture. So, the more serious students found liberation in action and expanded the radical move outside of academe into the society at large.

The radicals were, secretly by many, and openly by some, admired in academe as the darlings of a new age. They were the products of their teaching and the hopeful agents of change. And the universities liberal arts and sociology faculties grew with them and more openly approved what their radical progeny had done (with the insincere remonstrance against some violent but mostly harmless escapades). And they later welcomed them back into the fold as professors who had walked the walk to teach new generations the way to world peace and equality. To true social justice.

And now, they no longer had to resort to violence though they could proudly remember the glorious days of active revolution--and even teach methods that could still work to further transform the world. They could be more measured now, not so desperate, nor have to resort to violence, since they were now mainstream, the politically correct and righteous teachers.

Reformed and "forgiven" (as well as admired), they could devote their lives to positive public service. The progressive transformation of the educational and political institutions, which they helped to achieve, was the new melting pot that they sought which could combine various ideological notions of social justice and could co-opt, if not eradicate, the oppressive capitalistic, imperialistic mechanisms of the American past. And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time ......................... And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

there's your answer Jim...........:uhuh:

I addressed this quite directly and with cited points. But as is usual, spence will ignore my post because his position is not defendable - or he'll reply with some quip or vague spin that has nothing to do with my comments.

yup.....or suggest in another thread that someone pointing out the truth has gone too far or beyond the pale as he contiues to defend terrrorists, murderers and..folks that declared war and promised violence against the United States over political differences..... I suppose for the very same reasons that some Universities, Colleges and Organizations honor, employ and celebrate them

there was an FBI agent that managed to infiltrate the WU.....he had first hand experience with Ayers and the others and the story that he tells does't quite jive with Spence's version, which of course is nothing more that Ayer's version .....

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your question should be ......is anyone on the extreme right with a violent history teaching at, guest lecturing or giving commencement speeches at American Universities?

I can't think of any examples and I'm pretty sure that any self-respecting liberal universiy would never allow it....

can you give an example?

there's your answer Jim...........:uhuh:

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor. I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus. You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, if you're talking about people who bomb abortion clinics, etc...

But in the liberal ranks, even your everyday, garden-variety devotees are required to surrender rational thought.

Spence claimed that Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service. He's talking about an admitted, known terrorist. How can anyone possibly believe that?

I agree, if you're talking about people who bomb abortion clinics, etc...

But in the liberal ranks, even your everyday, garden-variety devotees are required to surrender rational thought.

Spence claimed that Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service. He's talking about an admitted, known terrorist. How can anyone possibly believe that?
Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11. Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
You view a liberal as someone with a mental disorder because your mind does not work like theirs and you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do because your mind thinks a different way. It's a left brain vs right brain debate.
I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other.. I'm just using my ability to think the way a liberal thinks to explain to you why you think it's a mental disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stand By.....

Hey. He asked. Maybe my mental disorder got me in trouble??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's a neat article stating why people on the far right come off as nut jobs.
Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity? | Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/genius-and-madness/200809/is-political-conservatism-mild-form-insanity)

Far left.. Far right. You got a screw loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11. Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
You view a liberal as someone with a mental disorder because your mind does not work like theirs and you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do because your mind thinks a different way. It's a left brain vs right brain debate.
I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other.. I'm just using my ability to think the way a liberal thinks to explain to you why you think it's a mental disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11."

I agree. And Hitler did a lot of good for Germany before he went a little funny in the head. But you and I both see that while those guys did dome good, they also did a lot of evil.

That's not what Spence said. He said that Ayers dedicated his life to positive public public service. He didn't say that Ayers did some good things, in adition to being a homicidal maniac.

'Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements"

In my opinion, not when it doesn't suit their ideology, they can't.

Case in point...Paul Ryan comes up with a plan to change Medicare. Not because he hates sick people, not because he wants all poor people to die, but because he concedes the irrefutable fact that Medicare is going broke.

Nebe, do you remember the liberal reaction to that? They crucified Ryan, made a commercial showing him pushing a wheelchair-bould lady off a cliff, claimed that he (and conservatives in general) didn't care about old people.

So I'm sorry, when it comes to large scale big issues, I don't see huge numbers of liberals seeing the big picture. What I see is liberals who instead of debating the merits of most issues, they go on the attack (if you are against abortion, liberals say you are waging war on women; if you are concede that Medicare is going broke, liberals say you hate sick people; if you are in favor of enforcing duly constituted immigration laws, liberals say you are anti-Mexican; if you are opposed to affirmative action, liberals say you are a racist; if you think there are limits to how much our government can spend, liberals say you don't care about poor people).

I'm not incorrect in that observation, nebe.

'Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds"

That is a ridiclulous stereotype, perpetuated by liberals who like to think of themselves as enlightened.

Most liberals are "very educated"? Take a stroll through Hartford CT or the streets of LA. There's not a lot of MENSA meetings happening in the poor urban areas, and those areas contain tons of liberals.

It's true that most highly educated, creative people are liberal. That does not mean that most liberals are highly educated and creative. Those are 2 very different hitngs.

"you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do"

That's true. I cannot fathom how Columbia University can make a professor out of someone who tried to incinerate their students. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that a murderer has more of a right to live than an unborn baby. I cannot fathom how liberals can conclude that Paul Ryan has no concern for poor people, simply because he thyinks Medicare needs to be changed.

You're correct, I cannot rationalize those things. And apparently you can't either, because saying that liberals are educated and creative, doesn't even come close to rationalizing these things.

I have a masters degree, and I spend a lot of free time composing music. Therefore, I am highly edicated and creative. Those attributes don't do anything to help me comprehend how millions of liberals people refuse to concede that Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke, unless we do somehting drastic.

" I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other"

When you say that liberals are educated and creative, and conservatives like to be told what to do by someone else...well, it sure sounds like you are saying one is better than the other.

I do not believe that you are as insulting of those with whom you disagree, as I am. I need to work on that. And i mean that.

But Nebe, come on...Columbia hires a woman who tried to murder students there? You have to admit, that's pretty weird...

Far left.. Far right. You got a screw loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are kooks on both sides, agreed...but ket's look at what the mainstream believes on both sides...

Mainstream left = abortion for everyone who wants one, open borders, unlimited debt, leave social security and Medicare alone, no limits to borrowing and spending, discriminating against some people is OK (affirmative action), help poor people by making them addicted to welfare, give labor unions whatever they ask for

mainstream right = belief that all life is precious, believe the best defense against evil is an awesome offense capability, doing the most you can for the poor without spending yourself into oblivion, belief in the preciousness of individual liberty, belief that actions have consequences, belief in the free market

I think you are confusing liberals with extreme leftist liberals. Not all liberals are nut jobs just as not all conservatives are nut jobs. As I said. Any extreme side has their nut jobs. Why Columbia hired her can only be answered by the people who hired her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process,.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So liberals are more open-minded? Are you saying that liberals are more tolerant of dissenting opinions that conservatives?

Lots of empirical evidence would refute that.

Yes. It has been my observation that normal liberals are far more open minded than conservatives. Case in point - gay marriage. Racial equality. Etc. liberals are far more open to the views of people who are not like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go to work. A job that I would describe as being a professional artist. A job that required me to think freely, creatively, and a job that requires me to make beautiful work to improve the lives of people who choose to purchase it. I'm a social liberal, fiscal conservative believe it or not. I'm able to see what the definitions of or constitution means in regards to personal equality and freedom for all..
I could sit here on my iPad all day and go back and forth with you about this stuff but it serves no gain for either of us. When I see something that I can't understand I do t feel the need to completely figure it out. The Columbia thing..I don't need to understand it. If my son wanted to go there, I'd say no. End of story. Life's too short. I learned this over quickly seeing the lies we were being told over the war of Iraq. I'm smart enough to spot a lie faster than most and I was highly vocal about it here... Didn't solve a single problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. It has been my observation that normal liberals are far more open minded than conservatives. Case in point - gay marriage. Racial equality. Etc. liberals are far more open to the views of people who are not like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have a valid point on the gay marriage thing.

But you are doing exactly what I stated that liberals do...you are saying that liberal positions represent a more open-minded ideology than the conservative positions.

Nebe, how does abortion fit into your narrative that liberals are more open-mined and inclusive? Slaughter the voiceless baby if the mom decides they are inconvenient? yes, that just reeks of open-mindedness and inclusion, doesn't it?

I conceded (and actually stated before you did) that your side had a point on gay marriage. Perhaps yuo can show me the same courtesy here...

"liberals are far more open to the views of people who are not like them"

Like that professor at Columbia, who tried to incinerate those who disagreed with her?

Nebe, do you watch the news? Do you see what happens on college campuses when conservatives try to express their opinions? Did you read my post, where I stated the fact that liberals claim that many conservative positions (liek life and fiscal responsibility) represent hate and intolerance? That's open-minded to you?

It seems to me, your understanding of conservatives is at least as flawed as my understanding of liberals.

You say that conservatives love the military because we like being told what to do? That's ridiculous and insulting to anyone who has served. you think people like getting awakened at 5 AM and and told to go for a run, or to scrub a public toilet? No one likes that. People join the military, because they feel called to participate in a a selfless, valuable, necessary, dangerous, public service. For you to belittle that, and say vets join the military because we cannot think for ourselves, is dismissive.

Same thing on religion...catholics don't go to church because we need to be told what to do. I'm not anti-abortion because my church tells me to be. You could not be more wrong...on the contrary, I am catholic because they agree with my pro-life stance.

nebe, if your premise was true, then you must assume that if the pope said abortion was OK, that all Catholics would be pro-choice. Not even close. If and when the Catholic church supports abortion, I leave the church and find another one.

I missed that in my first read of your post. That was incredibly wrong-headed. And while I bet you didn't mean to be insulting, it was deeply offensive.

I'm a vet. I can't believe you would explicitly state that we love the military (and I did love it) because I am a simpleton who couldn't feed or dress myself unless my commanding officer told me how to do it.

I was a Marine Corps officer. I had to think on my feet, sometimes in tough situations, every single day. I've been in the military, and I've been in a competitive college. I could make a very compelling argument that the military can be better place to learn to think for yourself than college, where students are often asked simply to regurgitate.

I'm able to see what the definitions of or constitution means in regards to personal equality and freedom for all..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not for the 4,000 unborn who are slaughetred every day. Good luck reconciling your stated position about personal equality and freedom for all, with the social liberal stance that abortion isn't a violation of what you claim to embrace.

If you are a social liberal, are you in favor of affirmative action? If so, how does discriminating against a white person, show that you understand the constitutional rights of that person?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "I am a liberal and therefore respect everyone", and then say "people join the military becauise they couldn't figure out how to tie their shoes if their commander didn't tell them".

Can't have it both ways.

Sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to point out that there are more conservatives in the military and who follow religion. Both military and religious beliefs no matter what the religion are about living and following rules. That's all I meant. I'm in a rush otherwise I'd elaborate more. I don't think you are a mindless order following drone, but those type of people are out there in the righ and the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if a poll was ever taken on those who enlist,the % of those who feel an obligation to country vs those who simply consider it their best option for a steady paycheck as well as reimbursement for tuition.No shame either way.
Jim,did you see the story about the abortion clinic in Philly?Horror.The government has to regulate this mess.

Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
Both liberals and conservatives are nut jobs plucked from opposite sides of the same tree.

Exactly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to point out that there are more conservatives in the military and who follow religion. Both military and religious beliefs no matter what the religion are about living and following rules. That's all I meant. I'm in a rush otherwise I'd elaborate more. I don't think you are a mindless order following drone, but those type of people are out there in the righ and the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No worries, I like this debate. I didn't infer anything you said here as intentionally disrespectful. In that regard, need to follow your lead.

Have a good one.

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor.

Is that a fact or a conjecture? Are you referring to the failed bombing plan that ended in the bombers blowing themselves up? Wasn't that supposed to be in preparation for a bombing at a U.S. Army dance at Fort Dix? I saw one article that says it might be about either the dance or Columbia U., but not definitive. The rest all pointed to the Army dance as target. And if the plan had succeeded, be it against the Army or against Columbia U., and with the botched robbery turned murder conviction, she would still be in prison. So Columbia would not be able to hire her, and your question would be moot. And, anyway, Columbia U. of 1970 was not the same as Columbia U. today. It was just beginning its travel to the present more open acceptance and admiration of radical 60's activists. Just as present day progressives don't accept the principles of America's founding and have no compunction about abandoning and disassociating from those principles, even revolting against them if necessary, so too would progressive administrators of Columbia U. not view the university's past, its founding principles, as something to uphold against hiring one who contributed to changing the culture to a more egalitarian and just one. Columbia of 1970 was still evolving toward the progressive transformation of society and the 60's radicals were children of that transformation. Why would they now be rejected when the transformation was happening apace? They would, more rationally, accept them if they believed in and aspired to the social justice promised by the progressive agenda. A promise certainly aided by the actions and continued dedication to that agenda by those very radicals?

I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus.

No it wouldn't explain that since it was trying to explain something else. As Spence likes to say, "pay attention."

You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

That's a teeny bit closer to what my post was explaining--the anything goes part, which is not really "anything" or "goes" but about why someone like Boudin would be hired by a prestigious university.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. Most present day Americans are "liberal" in one degree or another. The founding of this country was a "liberal" revolution. Yours is not a far-fetched scenario, but how liberals would react is so diverse, it would take a book to answer your question as to how they would react.

This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. Most present day Americans are "liberal" in one degree or another. The founding of this country was a "liberal" revolution. Yours is not a far-fetched scenario, but how liberals would react is so diverse, it would take a book to answer your question as to how they would react.

In one of my links, I provided a link to a story...yes, I'm talking about the incident where the idiots blew themselves up (and almost killed their neighbor, Dustin Hoffman).

The police investigation indicated 2 possible targets - an army dance at Fort Dix, and the Columbia University library. Blueprints to buildings on the Columbia University campus, were found in the rubble.

"This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. "

I agree that my wonder cannot be addressed. In my opinion, the reason for that has nothing to do with my labels of liberal vs conservative, but in how indefensible the liberal positions are on some issues.

There are obviously kooks on both sides. But on teh left, even the "middle of the pack" seems to surrender a huge amount of rationality and reasoning.

In this thread, Spence says the Weather Underground are not terrorists, and that Bill Ayers dedicated his life to positive public service.

Columbia University makes a professor out of a terrorist and accomplice to mass murdere.

The vast majority of liberals believe that conservatives don't care as much about the elderly and th epoor as they do...and their "evidence" is that we want to save the programs that serve the old and the poor, from bankruptcy.

That last one, is not a fringe liberal position. I hear that articulated by almost the entire group of elected Democrats in Washington, and certainly here in CT as well.

The liberals (and I mean the vast majority, not limited to the radical fringe) attack anyone who proposes cutting 3 cents from SS or Medicare. That necessarily means that they don't admit those programs need radical overhaul, which necessarily means that they are actively denying 4th grade arithmetic. I'm not talking about higher order statistics, I'm talking about addition and subtraction that can be done on a $5 calculator.

Nebe -

When you say conservatives like to follow rules...if you mean we are more rigid in thinking in some ways than liberals, I agree.

But I think you have misinterpreted (or been misinformed) about what that means.

Most conservatives don't believe that you have to go to mass every single Sunday, or fold your socks in a certain way, or make your bad as precisely as you have to do in the Army. We aren't lemmings.

The rules that we like to follow, have a clear moral purpose that can be seen with any honest analysis of historical facts. The rules we like to follow, include...

listening to your parents
working hard in school, getting as educated as possible
showing as much empathy for others as possible (don't put yourself first all the time)
don't do drugs
don't risk getting yourself or anyone else pregnant, until you are ready
when you have kids, dedicate your life to their development

Nebe, we aren't a bunch of lemmings. We know why we are following these rules, because every study ever done, and there have been hundreds, show that this is the blueprint for a happy, full life.

I'm not saying all conservatives follow these rules, nor am I saying that 0 liberals follow these rules. But in my opinion, liberalism is based more on a motto of "if it feels good, do it". When you convince pepole of that, you get things like a huge spike in the % of babies born to single moms, and guess what? That's EXACTLY what happened, thanks to the radical liberal revolution of the 1960's. Not a great cultural leap forward in my opinion.





Liberals, I believe, don't

here's the simplest explanation for you Jim because you are giving me a headache.....

modern liberalism = better person
conservative = evil

Eben described a "liberal" perfectly and how "modern liberals" would tend to reflect on themselves politically, personally....better, smarter, more tolerant, independent and posessing great judgment, of course....but apparently lacking humility :biglaugh:

Eben cites gay marriage as an example of liberal tolerance forgetting that Obama and Hillary only recently came around on this subject no doubt for political reasons otherwise, what took these smart tolerent people so long?......and that he lives in a state the cannot get gay marriage through a legislature that is overwhelmingly dominated by "liberals" in the modern and democrat sense.....France is extrmely "liberal"...but not when it comes to gay marriage apparently....

Eben referred to himself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal which is an impressive oxymoron.....tight with your own money while supporting unsustainable government programs that bankrupt your nation is what? or as a cartoon that I recently saw stated "I'm pro-chioce.....except for -insert lenghty list of issues"

on abortion.....I believe that most "liberals" simply punt on abortion....is it wrong?..most would say yes and not something that is for them...is it killing?.....there's really not much question about that....but for most "liberals" it's easiest to not render judgment and simply allow it..wrong morally but acceptable... .and for the some, ultimately fund it through government.....because many on the left understand that it is an important dividing issue on their tripod of political power and take full avantage of this unwillingness to render judgment by people that claim to 'separate the good the from the bad and weigh their judgments' better than the rest of us....

your frustration with "liberals" and why they do this or support that, is because you fail to understand that the dividing line that they draw in terms of rendering judgment is a political one rather than being based on any moral sense of right and wrong because right and wrong for many of them is relative and relative to their stance on a political issue as opposed to the dreaded "religious" type of moral judgment....have you noticed that virtually every "issue" these days is a political issue that the government must involve itself in or solve?

if you are counted among the self-described "liberals" you are part of their "independent" group think club and not subject to the rules of political correctness and behaviour that you may heap mercilessly on others.....you point these out on a reguar basis Jim...no shortage of examples

this just happens to be yet another.....


"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.

Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military. . "

still trying to make sense of this....are these the same indpendent free thought "modern liberals" that seek to tax, regulate and administer control via a massive centralized bureaucracy over every aspect of American life with their big picture good judgments which I guess is to control those Conservatives who desperately yearn to be controlled as they complain about trivial things like freedom and liberty and personal responsibility?

must be a left/right brain thing

BTW Ayers was recognized and received some sort of award for reforming education in Chicago...which I guess is like giving Ted Kennedy a Lifesaving Medal or Obama a Nobel Peace Prize....but was coincidentally denied an award by the University of Chicago because he dedicated one of his written works to Sirhan Sirhan and the Kennedy son who was on the board and did not find it amusing....Ayers denies this of course......

"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.

Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military. . "

still trying to make sense of this....are these the same indpendent free thought liberals that seek to tax, regulate and administer control via a massive centralized bureaucracy over every aspect of American life with their big picture good judgments which I guess is to control those Conservatives who yearn controlling as they complain about trivial things like freedom and liberty and personal responsibility?

must be a left/right brain thing

It's hard to make sense of a paradox other than to accept it for what it is. Maybe understanding the origination sheds light on why it is whatever it is. The liberal/conservative paradox in which what is purported to be "liberal" is actually authoritarian, and what is considered to be "conservative" (a supposedly rigid, authoritarian complex) is a structure for individual freedom. How did this come to be?

Two nearly simultaneous revolutions both of which were to promote liberty, the American and French revolutions, started from different circumstances and ended with different results. The Americans actually had a great degree of freedom before their revolution, more, for the common man than may have existed in advanced cultures before that time. Their revolution was about keeping that freedom from being usurped by a distant ruling power and ensuring that no ruling power, domestic or foreign, could ever take away that liberty. The French were about getting a freedom that common men did not have.

The Americans created a system derived not only from the centuries of different governing models, but also from their own experience of liberty under loose British rule in the colonies. It was a system created by a people that were relatively free to make their way, and that initiative and self-responsibility engendered a vision which relied on dispersed individual and local power rather than a central authority.

The French experienced and understood, in spite of and contrary to even their own political philosophers such as Montesque, power to be distributed from a ruling class. In the case of their revolution, the ruling class, the monarchy, was to be overthrown and replaced by another ruling class supported by "the people." Their liberty would be an enforced equality.

Each was a "liberal" revolution in that there was a liberation from monarchical rule. The Americans were merely keeping and ensuring freedom, the French would administer and enforce a new freedom of "equality."

Somehow, after about a hundred years, sophisticated American students taught by an emerging class of "progressive" thinkers and scholars that, especially those who went abroad to "better" German and French universities, became more enamored of the burgeoning European idea of "equality" which was growing like a wildfire there, concocted by the likes of Marx and French social theorists, and co-opted and quelled by the ruling class with a system of bureaucratic administration which doled out new systems of welfare and pensions. After all, a founding principle was that all men were created equal, and they saw that Americans were NOT all equal. And they perceived that the wealthy were lording it over the common man. And they admired the system of German and French administration as far more efficient than the cumbersome American system and as far more capable of distributing material good in a more equitable fashion. And they believed that the European system could be "Americanized," that the control of the ruling class could be replaced by freer American governmental ways.

The so-called liberals of today are more inheritors of the French revolution and dissenters against the outcome of the American revolution. As I see it, what is called "liberal" has become an embodiment of that European centralized administration of equal distribution ENFORCED by government. What is called "conservative" is a mixed bag, the ostensible core of which is preservation of the original system of individual and local sovereignty. Hence the paradox. "Conservatism" is actually more "liberal" in the classical sense in that it conserves individual liberation from central government power. "Liberalism" is actually more like what the "liberals" refer to as "conservatism," a rigid attempt to control the distribution and redistribution of material well being in a supposedly equal outcome.

there's that and also look at:

"Locke's Classical Liberalism"- belonging to liberalism, advocating civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo, stressing the belief in free market and natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7] Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government[8] .

"Burkean Conservatism"- described as "the disposition to maintain those institutions seen as central to the beliefs and practices of society'"...and specifically in America- In the United States, conservatism is rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to conserve the rights and liberties of Englishmen

"Fiscal conservatism" (which Eben and many "liberals "claim) is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.[34] Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, argued that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer

"liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different senses. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of laissez-faire economic principles, such as respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets[1] with the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality[2] through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government.

I'd argue that today's "liberal" considering the policies that they've embraced and continue push to even greater degrees represent none of this.....and in fact....Eben's description of a liberal is little more than a list of "superior qualities" that most liberals apparently posess either by nature or by virtue of thinking the right "liberal way" on various issues or by accident of birth and superior genetic fortune allowing them to know and understand better than the rest of us


...exactly what does today's modern American "Liberal" stand for given the political ideaology that they currently give power and enablement to through their support ?...

To think you can set off bombs merely for protest and that eventually someone wouldn't be injured, or killed, is worse than naïve. It is, as you say, radical and violent. One can change, however, and "grow up" which is what we are supposed to assume these people did.
Change or in the case of Boudin perhaps rehabilitate.

I think emphasis must be placed though on their actual actions vs speculation...that they used small bombs hidden in out of the way locations (I've read a bathroom vent was the most common) with the threat phoned in advance...clearly shows the intent was not to kill as much as make a very dramatic statement.

The comparison is not to the immediate physical results, but to the eventual purpose.
To stop the war? Oh yes, a handful of college students were out to overthrow the US Government via violent protest.

Ayers, himself, questions the legality of what they did, convicted or not, and the "robbery at that", for which Boudin served her time, shortened through the grace of a plea bargain, involved being a willing accomplice to killing and maiming.
And Boudin has expressed her regret for her actions, served 22 years and appears to have moved on.

And what would that recent work be? Is it essentially the same work as that of their "misguided youth" but with the cover of academic respectability. Do they still want to bring down imperialist, capitalist America, and transform it into a socialist, Marxist system? Ayers still "admires" Marx.

So Boudin is subliminally populating her left wing views with social work on HIV, women in prison, kids with incarcerated parents and literacy and education in prison?

I'll bet Ayers got his "Citizen of the Year Award" from the city of Chicago for his efforts to spread the word about the Reds through education reform. Millions of adults are now sleeper radicals ready to jump at the sign.

To be honest I find it more impressive that these people shed their violent past to be productive members of society. In some regards they're more model citizens than many. Is Ayers still a hard left winger? I'd bet he certainly is...that doesn't mean he doesn't have a place.

And yes, the point of this thread is the connection of academia to the growth of progressivism. It is the original home of that movement and its greatest proponent and facilitator.
As Nebe indicated, doesn't that make some sense? Perhaps a better question is if this is a bad thing...

Is our academic system pumping out an army of hardcore progressives? Doesn't seem like it, in fact, our country is still in the same center right position it has been for quite some time...even with the generational shift on some progressive issues like gays or pot.

And you are being played by an older movement, despite your seeming dislike of oldness and infatuation of new, "smart" stuff.
You're stereotyping.

You seem to view progressivism as something new (perhaps the title mesmerizes you) when it is older now in this country than the Constitution was when the progressives began their assault on our founding. But it does evolve. It is becoming more dictatorial than the original progressives intended. Or maybe they did intend it so.
Not at all, I've questioned many times at what point do elements of progressive ideas become part of the mundane fabric and are now conservative?

The reality is that it's highly relative to the behavior of the practitioners at a certain point of time and from a certain perspective. Observations made from a static reference frame are academic, not without merit, but also potentially suspect.

-spence

So Boudin is subliminally populating her left wing views with social work on HIV, women in prison, kids with incarcerated parents and literacy and education in prison?

I'll bet Ayers got his "Citizen of the Year Award" from the city of Chicago for his efforts to spread the word about the Reds through education reform.

Is Ayers still a hard left winger? I'd bet he certainly is...that doesn't mean he doesn't have a place. . -spence .



[43] The members of Weatherman targeted high school and college students, assuming they would be willing to rebel against the authoritative figures who had oppressed them, including cops, principals, and bosses.[44] Weather aimed to develop roots within the class struggle, targeting white working-class youths. The younger members of the working class became the focus of the organizing effort because they felt the oppression strongly in regards to the military draft, low-wage jobs, and schooling.[45]

Schools became a common place of recruitment for the movement. In direct actions, dubbed Jailbreaks, Weather members invaded educational institutions as a means by which to recruit high school and college students. The motivation of these jailbreaks was the organization's belief that school was where the youth were oppressed by the system and where they learned to tolerate society’s faults instead of rise against them. According to “Prairie Fire”, young people are channeled, coerced, misled, miseducated, misused in the school setting. It is in schools that the youth of the nation become alienated from the authentic processes of learning about the world [46]

Factions of the Weatherman organization began recruiting members by applying their own strategies. Women's groups such as The Motor City Nine and Cell 16 took the lead in various recruitment efforts. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a member of the radical women's liberation group, Cell 16, spoke about her personal recruitment agenda saying that she wanted their group to go out in every corner of the country and tell women the truth, recruit the local people, poor and working-class people, in order to build a new society [47]


In June 1974, the Weather Underground released a 151-page volume titled Prairie Fire, which stated: "We are a guerrilla organization [...] We are communist women and men underground in the United States [...]"[57]

Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, claims Ayers told him where to plant bombs. He says Ayers was bent on overthrowing the government.

[43] The members of Weatherman targeted high school and college students, assuming they would be willing to rebel against the authoritative figures who had oppressed them, including cops, principals, and bosses.[44] Weather aimed to develop roots within the class struggle, targeting white working-class youths. The younger members of the working class became the focus of the organizing effort because they felt the oppression strongly in regards to the military draft, low-wage jobs, and schooling.[45]

Schools became a common place of recruitment for the movement. In direct actions, dubbed Jailbreaks, Weather members invaded educational institutions as a means by which to recruit high school and college students. The motivation of these jailbreaks was the organization's belief that school was where the youth were oppressed by the system and where they learned to tolerate society’s faults instead of rise against them. According to “Prairie Fire”, young people are channeled, coerced, misled, miseducated, misused in the school setting. It is in schools that the youth of the nation become alienated from the authentic processes of learning about the world [46]

Factions of the Weatherman organization began recruiting members by applying their own strategies. Women's groups such as The Motor City Nine and Cell 16 took the lead in various recruitment efforts. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a member of the radical women's liberation group, Cell 16, spoke about her personal recruitment agenda saying that she wanted their group to go out in every corner of the country and tell women the truth, recruit the local people, poor and working-class people, in order to build a new society [47]
I'm just curious, but you do realize there was a pretty big counter culture movement in the 1960's don't you?

In June 1974, the Weather Underground released a 151-page volume titled Prairie Fire, which stated: "We are a guerrilla organization [...] We are communist women and men underground in the United States [...]"[57]

Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated The Weather Underground, claims Ayers told him where to plant bombs. He says Ayers was bent on overthrowing the government.
Yes, the jailbreak of Timothy Leary being a critical component of the grand scheme...

Hard to imagine taking over the world without some preparation :hihi:

http://ihgritch.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/trippyy.jpg

-spence

60's....70's....80's....when exactly did they change or rehabilitate Spence? you know...if these people were right-wingers....all of the hair on Janet Napolitano's back would be standing straight up.....


Prairie Fire 1974

With the help from Clayton Van Lydegraf, the Weather Underground sought a more Marxist-Leninist ideological approach to the post-Vietnam reality.[99]:68 The leading members of the Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn) collaborated on ideas and published their manifesto: Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism.[15] The name came from a quote by Mao Zedong, "a single spark can set a prairie fire." By the summer of 1974, five thousand copies had surfaced in coffee houses and bookstores across America. Leftist newspapers praised the manifesto.[100]

Abbie Hoffman publicly praised Prairie Fire and believed every American should be given a copy.[101] The manifesto’s influence initiated the formation of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee in several American cities. Hundreds of above-ground activists helped further the new political vision of the Weather Underground.[100] Among other things, the manifesto called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a means to achieving its social goals:


"The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.... Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit.... Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted.... It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle. Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory."[102]

Essentially, after the 1969 failure of the Days of Rage to involve thousands of youth in massive street fighting, Weather renounced most of the Left and decided to operate as an isolated underground group. Prairie Fire urged people to never "dissociate mass struggle from revolutionary violence." To do so, claimed Weather, was to do the state's work. Just as in 1969-70, Weather still refused to renounce revolutionary violence for "to leave people unprepared to fight the state is to seriously mislead them about the inevitable nature of what lies ahead." However, the decision to build only an underground group caused the Weather Underground to lose sight of its commitment to mass struggle and made future alliances with the mass movement difficult and tenuous.[99]:76–77

By 1974, Weather had recognized this shortcoming and in Prairie Fire detailed a different strategy for the 1970s which demanded both mass and clandestine organizations. The role of the clandestine organization would be to build the "consciousness of action" and prepare the way for the development of a people's militia. Concurrently, the role of the mass movement (i.e., above ground Prairie Fire collective) would include support for, and encouragement of, armed action. Such an alliance would, according to Weather, "help create the 'sea' for the guerrillas to swim in." [99]:76–77

According to Bill Ayers in the late 1970s, the Weatherman group further split into two factions — the May 19th Communist Organization and the "Prairie Fire Collective" — with Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers in the latter. The Prairie Fire Collective favored coming out of hiding and establishing an above ground revolutionary mass movement.

I love it, you post about how weak the movement really was in an attempt to demonstrate how dangerous they were :uhuh:

-spence

I love it, you post about how weak the movement really was in an attempt to demonstrate how dangerous they were :uhuh: -spence


I love it...you are desperate to defend, minimize and dismiss anti-American terrorists....

didn't two teenagers just parlalyze the City of Boston and much of New England for most of a week?


1974, Weather had recognized this shortcoming and in Prairie Fire detailed a different strategy for the 1970s which demanded both mass and clandestine organizations. The role of the clandestine organization would be to build the "consciousness of action" and prepare the way for the development of a people's militia.

this would be "community organizing"

I love it...you are desperate to defend, minimize and dismiss anti-American terrorists....

didn't two teenagers just parlalyze the City of Boston and much of New England for most of a week?

Sorry, I thought you had hit rock bottom in the other thread. My mistake...

-spence

Sorry, I thought you had hit rock bottom in the other thread. My mistake...

-spence

it's an obvious question given your stance on Ayers & Co...the fact that you can't answer or find it objectionable says far more about your relative proximity to rock bottom that it does mine

it's an obvious question given your stance on Ayers & Co...the fact that you can't answer it says far more about your relative proximity to rock bottom that it does mine

What question haven't I answered?

-spence

What question haven't I answered?

-spence

you've answered many actually which is very disturbing....the answer to my last question is obviously yes...two college aged individuals who are ill motivated can cause quite a bit of damage though you seem inclined to overlook all in the Ayers crew escapades, you continually dismiss and minimize and excuse the very clear intentions, rhetoric and actions that were more that just a snapshot in time for these people....the paralelles are pretty clear although you seem to be struggling....as was pointed out....the fact that they didn't kill more people was more a result of good fortune for the innocent rather than lack of effort or careful planning in their bombing operations....for that you seem to give them good marks

I think emphasis must be placed though on their actual actions vs speculation...that they used small bombs hidden in out of the way locations (I've read a bathroom vent was the most common) with the threat phoned in advance...clearly shows the intent was not to kill as much as make a very dramatic statement.

So, Spence, if I am egregiously annoyed by your constant rationalizing, would it be alright with you if I placed a small bomb in your bathroom vent to dramatically state my displeasure? Is that how we resolve differences? It seems to me that those who use violence as a method of discussion are not so much interested in coming to a mutual agreement, but rather want to force you through fear and intimidation to their way. And, yes, it is naïve to think that someone would not eventually be hurt or killed by the innocent blasting of bombs.

To stop the war? Oh yes, a handful of college students were out to overthrow the US Government via violent protest.

It was a lot more than a handful. It was more than a single organization. It was more than a single new idea. It was a gradual coalescence of various socialist ideologies which desired to speed up the transformation of American culture and governance which was already underway. The progressive movement was already long into the transformation. The various Marxist and socialist groups had already infiltrated segments of society and all together were influencing the radicalization of idealistic youths. And that has not stopped. The progressive transformation has so nearly changed the mores and system of governance that it can provide the umbrella for most leftist ideologies without the need for further physical violence. And it has been gradual enough over a "handful" of generations that it is becoming the "new norm."

And Boudin has expressed her regret for her actions, served 22 years and appears to have moved on.
So Boudin is subliminally populating her left wing views with social work on HIV, women in prison, kids with incarcerated parents and literacy and education in prison?

All subjects can be taught from a point of view, whether blatant or subtle. And can be interwoven with various comments along the pedagogic way that trend the learning toward that point of view. Almost subliminal at times, in your face at others. But always with intention. An intention that is informed nearly unconsciously and effortlessly by years of thought and experience. You can be in the presence of two different people, one from the "right" and one from the "left," both discussing the same subject in an effort to be objective and strictly subject oriented, but given enough time, you will be able to see a difference in what is "taught" by their discussions.

I'll bet Ayers got his "Citizen of the Year Award" from the city of Chicago for his efforts to spread the word about the Reds through education reform. Millions of adults are now sleeper radicals ready to jump at the sign.

It is no longer necessary to have "sleeper cells." Especially in large, progressive, urban areas. Progressive politics dominate them. Progressivism is the home of various "leftist" movements here, and the progress is ongoing. There is no longer the urgency for instant reform. They know it will take time and patience and continuous effort. They will, eventually totally transform this society, and eventually, they hope, the world. They are persistent and finding power in unity under the umbrella of progressivism.

To be honest I find it more impressive that these people shed their violent past to be productive members of society. In some regards they're more model citizens than many. Is Ayers still a hard left winger? I'd bet he certainly is...that doesn't mean he doesn't have a place.

It is not as impressive when they are welcomed back into a world they helped to change. They have shed violence because it is no longer needed. Being productive is easier for them now since they have been given the levers of persuasion. They can "produce" their world view peacefully. That is their place.

As Nebe indicated, doesn't that make some sense? Perhaps a better question is if this is a bad thing...

That is THE question. The question deserves a discussion, not an inference.

Is our academic system pumping out an army of hardcore progressives? Doesn't seem like it, in fact, our country is still in the same center right position it has been for quite some time...even with the generational shift on some progressive issues like gays or pot.

The "center" right has shifted dramatically over time, toward the progressive and progressive "right."

You're stereotyping.

Just making an observation based on the limited and well-couched views you post. Is it any more stereotyping than how you accused Jim in CT of being "played."

Not at all, I've questioned many times at what point do elements of progressive ideas become part of the mundane fabric and are now conservative?

How has something that has been changed been conserved. How is a fabric that is constantly changing conserved rather than being replaced.

The reality is that it's highly relative to the behavior of the practitioners at a certain point of time and from a certain perspective. Observations made from a static reference frame are academic, not without merit, but also potentially suspect.

-spence

Yes, I realize that your reference frame is relative. That you observe from a constantly shifting frame of reference. You have several times stated contradictions to previous views. If called on it, you justify it by saying its a matter of context. It does move the conversation on without having to explain.

you've answered many actually which is very disturbing....the answer to my last question is obviously yes...two college aged individuals who are ill motivated can cause quite a bit of damage though you seem inclined to overlook all in the Ayers crew escapades, you continually dismiss and minimize and excuse the very clear intentions, rhetoric and actions that were more that just a snapshot in time for these people....the paralelles are pretty clear although you seem to be struggling....as was pointed out....the fact that they didn't kill more people was more a result of good fortune for the innocent rather than lack of effort or careful planning in their bombing operations....for that you seem to give them good marks
You said I couldn't answer a question, which was it?

And I haven't dismissed or minimized as much as provide context.

The fact that the WUO didn't kill people should be evaluated in context of their actual behavior and not what you want to think or assume. Based on their behavior the intent was to shock and agitate rather than kill, had it been otherwise people certainly would have died. That doesn't imply it was justified or moral, but had their actions led to actual deaths, the treatment by the government and society would most likely have been much different.

Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense - Life During Wartime - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXgMhnI3QOI)

I don't see your "clear parallels" at all to be honest. Perhaps you could elaborate.

-spence

So, Spence, if I am egregiously annoyed by your constant rationalizing, would it be alright with you if I placed a small bomb in your bathroom vent to dramatically state my displeasure? Is that how we resolve differences? It seems to me that those who use violence as a method of discussion are not so much interested in coming to a mutual agreement, but rather want to force you through fear and intimidation to their way. And, yes, it is naïve to think that someone would not eventually be hurt or killed by the innocent blasting of bombs.
I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

It was a lot more than a handful. It was more than a single organization. It was more than a single new idea. It was a gradual coalescence of various socialist ideologies which desired to speed up the transformation of American culture and governance which was already underway. The progressive movement was already long into the transformation. The various Marxist and socialist groups had already infiltrated segments of society and all together were influencing the radicalization of idealistic youths. And that has not stopped. The progressive transformation has so nearly changed the mores and system of governance that it can provide the umbrella for most leftist ideologies without the need for further physical violence. And it has been gradual enough over a "handful" of generations that it is becoming the "new norm."
Well, it seems like the need for physical violence has trended down in direct relation to the end of the Vietnam war and the generational shift that immediately followed.

I do see more social progressive influence today (also generational shifts) but in other areas the dynamics appear to be more influenced by day to day politics than macro trends.

All subjects can be taught from a point of view, whether blatant or subtle. And can be interwoven with various comments along the pedagogic way that trend the learning toward that point of view. Almost subliminal at times, in your face at others. But always with intention. An intention that is informed nearly unconsciously and effortlessly by years of thought and experience. You can be in the presence of two different people, one from the "right" and one from the "left," both discussing the same subject in an effort to be objective and strictly subject oriented, but given enough time, you will be able to see a difference in what is "taught" by their discussions.
So have you've assessed her work or are you just making assumptions? This goes back to the initial thread, was Columbia "honoring" her violent past or recognizing the contribution she could make to the faculty? I'd note that she also got her education degree there...

It is no longer necessary to have "sleeper cells." Especially in large, progressive, urban areas. Progressive politics dominate them. Progressivism is the home of various "leftist" movements here, and the progress is ongoing. There is no longer the urgency for instant reform. They know it will take time and patience and continuous effort. They will, eventually totally transform this society, and eventually, they hope, the world. They are persistent and finding power in unity under the umbrella of progressivism.
If that was true I'd think the progressive movement would have a stronger identity. In fact I don't think the Left has a strong identity at all...There are few in this country that will even self describe themselves as "liberals."

It is not as impressive when they are welcomed back into a world they helped to change. They have shed violence because it is no longer needed. Being productive is easier for them now since they have been given the levers of persuasion. They can "produce" their world view peacefully. That is their place.
That's a stretch. I'd say that most radical groups shed violence because they could no longer get away with it.

The "center" right has shifted dramatically over time, toward the progressive and progressive "right."
Measured against what? Some abstract concept or a real baseline?

Just making an observation based on the limited and well-couched views you post. Is it any more stereotyping than how you accused Jim in CT of being "played."
My accusation of Jim being played had nothing to do with ideas, it was about his inference lacking in facts.

How has something that has been changed been conserved. How is a fabric that is constantly changing conserved rather than being replaced.
Conservatism would be illogical if it didn't accommodate for change. The nuance is in the rate of change.

Yes, I realize that your reference frame is relative. That you observe from a constantly shifting frame of reference. You have several times stated contradictions to previous views. If called on it, you justify it by saying its a matter of context. It does move the conversation on without having to explain.
"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.


-spence

very little in their stated goals and purposes had anything to do with Vietnam...they used it as a recruiting tool....took advantage of a crisis... and their greatest interest in the war was that they shared idealogical and political orientation with our enemies....


The thesis of Weatherman theory, as expounded in its founding document, You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows, was that "the main struggle going on in the world today is between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it",[23] based on Lenin's theory of imperialism, first expounded in 1916 in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In Weatherman theory "oppressed peoples" are the creators of the wealth of empire, "and it is to them that it belongs." "The goal of revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interest of the oppressed peoples of the world." "The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism"[24]

The Weatherman group had long held that militancy was becoming more important than nonviolent forms of anti-war action, and that university-campus-based demonstrations needed to be punctuated with more dramatic actions, which had the potential to interfere with the US military and internal security apparatus. The belief was that these types of urban guerrilla actions would act as a catalyst for the coming revolution. Many international events indeed seemed to support the Weathermen’s overall assertion that worldwide revolution was imminent

this is impressive

List of Weatherman actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions)

hey Jim...it it becoming clearer now?.....I think you have the answer to your intital question both in theory and in practice at this point....there's also a nice little intersection to the two topics that diverged regarding ideaology and political lables that should be helpful

During one of the president's speeches about the violence in Boston, he said about the terrorists...

"“Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?”

Maybe they were inspired by Professor Bowdin at Columbia. Maybe they heard Rev Wright speak somewhere. Maybe they attended a symposium where Bill Ayers gave a lecture.

The President is not suffering from a shortage of chutzpah.

If Obama wants people who study here to be disenfrachised with violence...then perhaps, just perhaps, we should reconsider having homicidal maniacs (as long as they are liberal homicidal maniacs) teaching our kids...

But hey, that's just me...

[QUOTE=spence;995395.that they used small bombs hidden in out of the way locations [/QUOTE]

OK, so now you are a munitions expert.

The bombs that blew up in the brownstone where the Weather Underground were living, were not small bombs.

They almost killeed their next door neighbors as well, who happened to be Mr and Mrs Dustin Hoffman.

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, of course. However, tyou should not be making things up, out of thin air, to support your claims. You should hold yourself to a higher standard than that.

I sometimes wonder if you aren't just yanking our chains, because even the kooks at MSNBC wouldn't bend over as far backwards as you are.

Here is an article with some facts that debunk your claim about the bombs being small. As if that matters. So according to spence, planting bombs in public places does not make you unfit to teach children, as long as the payload of those bombs is below a certain yield. Spence, what's the maximum permissable payload, if a terrorist wants to be a kindergarten teacher after he retires from terrorism?


Greenwich Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion)

"a brick-by-brick search of the rubble uncovered 57 sticks of dynamite, four 12-inch (300 mm) pipe bombs packed with dynamite, and 30 blasting caps. The pipe bombs and several eight-stick packages of dynamite had fuses already attached. Also found were timing devices rigged from alarm clocks, maps of the tunnel network underneath Columbia University"

Spence have you no shame? Have you no shame at all?

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working.
-spence


So, Spence...do you similarly forgive those who bomb abortion clinics? Or do you selectively apply your forgiveness, applying it only to those who threaten violence in the name of liberal causes?

Have fun with that one!

What you are saying, Spence, is that that when someone (presumably a liberal) is sufficiently frustrated that they aren't getting their way, the use (or threat) of mass violence and terrorism, is acceptable to you.

Is that what you teach your kids? If so, good luck to anyone who dares to say "no" to your kids.

According to SPence, the Weather Underground's actions are considered, we need to conclude that a mitigating factor was thatthey were "angry".

Spence, don't you think Al Queda terrorists similarly feel that the peaceful way of getting their way isn't working for them, and that they have similarly reached a boiling point? Isn't that a prerequisite for their having declared a fatwah on anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe? Do you give them a pass too?

Have you no shame?



Jesus Christ...

I want to interject something here. I never said that Columbia was doing the right thing when they hired this lady. I tried to explain what liberals are like. That said. Imagine 30 years from now.. And Columbia hires this kid that was arrested in Boston yesterday. Would it happen?? Weigh the differences between this lady and this kid...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;995451

I sometimes wonder if you aren't just yanking our chains, because even the kooks at MSNBC wouldn't bend over as far backwards as you are.

[/QUOTE]


well, since he's just been repeating Ayer's after the fact excuses he should at this point claim he was being ironic...

that's what Bill Ayers would do.....

Dohrn was criticized for comments she made about the murders of actress Sharon Tate and retail store owners Leno and Rosemary LaBianca by the Charles Manson clan. In a speech during the December 1969 "War Council" meeting organized by the Weathermen, attended by about 400 people in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn said, "First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the pig Tate's stomach! Wild!"[14] In greeting each other, delegates to the war council often spread their fingers to signify the fork.[9]

In 2008, Dohrn's husband Bill Ayers wrote that Dohrn was being ironic when she made the statement about the Manson murders.


I guess that irony in the terrorist sense....

hey Jim....Bernadine Dohrn is an "esteemed" college professor too!.....

"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence

psycho-babble

psycho-babble

Best quote evah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

very little in their stated goals and purposes had anything to do with Vietnam...they used it as a recruiting tool....took advantage of a crisis... and their greatest interest in the war was that they shared idealogical and political orientation with our enemies....
The war was the engine behind the radicalization. This wasn't a bunch of communists looking for a cause, their behavior was a by-product.

-spence

OK, so now you are a munitions expert.

The bombs that blew up in the brownstone where the Weather Underground were living, were not small bombs.

They almost killeed their next door neighbors as well, who happened to be Mr and Mrs Dustin Hoffman.

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, of course. However, tyou should not be making things up, out of thin air, to support your claims. You should hold yourself to a higher standard than that.

I sometimes wonder if you aren't just yanking our chains, because even the kooks at MSNBC wouldn't bend over as far backwards as you are.

Here is an article with some facts that debunk your claim about the bombs being small. As if that matters. So according to spence, planting bombs in public places does not make you unfit to teach children, as long as the payload of those bombs is below a certain yield. Spence, what's the maximum permissable payload, if a terrorist wants to be a kindergarten teacher after he retires from terrorism?


Greenwich Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Village_townhouse_explosion)

"a brick-by-brick search of the rubble uncovered 57 sticks of dynamite, four 12-inch (300 mm) pipe bombs packed with dynamite, and 30 blasting caps. The pipe bombs and several eight-stick packages of dynamite had fuses already attached. Also found were timing devices rigged from alarm clocks, maps of the tunnel network underneath Columbia University"

Spence have you no shame? Have you no shame at all?
You're citing the explosion at their little bomb making factory...that in no way indicates the bombs they did plant were large. From what I've read they weren't...

So does all crime invalidate a return to civilian life? Lots of people have done bad things and returned so society. In some instances there are laws (like prohibiting felons from voting, or sex offenders working around children) that don't permit a full return.

-spence

So, Spence...do you similarly forgive those who bomb abortion clinics? Or do you selectively apply your forgiveness, applying it only to those who threaten violence in the name of liberal causes?

Have fun with that one!
How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference...

What you are saying, Spence, is that that when someone (presumably a liberal) is sufficiently frustrated that they aren't getting their way, the use (or threat) of mass violence and terrorism, is acceptable to you.
I've never said that, and if that's what you think then clearly you haven't read a thing I've posted.

According to SPence, the Weather Underground's actions are considered, we need to conclude that a mitigating factor was thatthey were "angry".
Oh brother...

Spence, don't you think Al Queda terrorists similarly feel that the peaceful way of getting their way isn't working for them, and that they have similarly reached a boiling point? Isn't that a prerequisite for their having declared a fatwah on anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe? Do you give them a pass too?
Big difference, al Qaeda terrorists plot to kill massive numbers of innocent people in dramatic attacks without any warning.

That's the thing you don't seem to grasp. Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes.

-spence

That said. Imagine 30 years from now.. And Columbia hires this kid that was arrested in Boston yesterday. Would it happen?? Weigh the differences between this lady and this kid...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think you can make hypotheticals like this...every situation is different. While Boudin was certainly implicated in the murder, she also didn't pull the trigger and was able to plea bargain a lesser sentence...still she served 22 years.

Suspect #2 is likely not going to have the chance to work outside of making license plates. That's assuming he doesn't get sentenced to death in a federal court which I think is a possibility.

-spence

I want to interject something here. I never said that Columbia was doing the right thing when they hired this lady. I tried to explain what liberals are like. That said. Imagine 30 years from now.. And Columbia hires this kid that was arrested in Boston yesterday. Would it happen?? Weigh the differences between this lady and this kid...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That lady is responsible for 3 murders, this kid is responsible for 4. I cannot fathom how you can be OK with this lady teaching at Columbia, and not being OK with this kid teaching there. I'm sure Spence could find sone hair to split.

I never said I was ok with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That lady is responsible for 3 murders, this kid is responsible for 4. I cannot fathom how you can be OK with this lady teaching at Columbia, and not being OK with this kid teaching there. I'm sure Spence could find sone hair to split.

Again, you find casual parity out of thin air.

This kid and his brother have caused a lot more trouble than 4 murders. Beyond the mass casualties, region wide panic and huge taxpayer bill...there's that tiny issue of premeditation.

-spence

How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference...


I've never said that, and if that's what you think then clearly you haven't read a thing I've posted.


Oh brother...


Big difference, al Qaeda terrorists plot to kill massive numbers of innocent people in dramatic attacks without any warning.

That's the thing you don't seem to grasp. Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes.

-spence

"How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference..."

OK. So as long as any one abortion clininc bomber killed 3 or less (the lady at Columbia killed 3), you're telling me it's OK.

"Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes. "

So tell us Spence...what's the maximum number of murders someone can commit (in the course of terrorism), before they are unfit to teach your kids?

I say zero.

You are the one who says you need to look at how angry they happened to be at the time, or whether ot was 3 or 4 innocent people that were incinerated, or whether or not MSNBC is sympathetic to the cause.

This lady at Columbia killed 3 innocent people in attempt to galvanize a left-led violent revolution in the US. This kid in Boston killed 4 people for who-knows-what reason.

The details of their crimes will differ. Regardless, they are both, without question, bloodthirsty homicidal maniacs. None have any business teaching our kids. If they get out of jail and want to scrub toilets from midnight until 6 AM, fine. You don't let them mold the minds of the next generation, unless you want more violence...

Again, you find casual parity out of thin air.

This kid and his brother have caused a lot more trouble than 4 murders. Beyond the mass casualties, region wide panic and huge taxpayer bill...there's that tiny issue of premeditation.

-spence

Spence, are you saying that the Brinks robbery, in which 3 were murdered, caused no meaningful panic or taxpayer expense?

OK. So in addition to being a munitions expert, youapparently also know all about public economic policy as it relates to criminal investigations involving major crimes.

The Brinks robbery was a huge deal at the time.

The crimes weren't identical, I never said they were. But I cannot believe you'd want either criminal teaching your kids, although based on the thoughtless drivel you've posted here, maybe you'd have no issue with your kids taught by terrorists, as long as they were liberal terrorists who targeted conservative targets like police officers. But we all know what you'd say about an abortion clinic bomber who killed 4 employees at an abortion clinic.

"How many have died or been shot in abortion clinic violence? Big difference..."

OK. So as long as any one abortion clininc bomber killed 3 or less (the lady at Columbia killed 3), you're telling me it's OK.

"Lumping all these actions together under a common banner tarnishes the real threats for political purposes. "

So tell us Spence...what's the maximum number of murders someone can commit (in the course of terrorism), before they are unfit to teach your kids?

I say zero.

You are the one who says you need to look at how angry they happened to be at the time, or whether ot was 3 or 4 innocent people that were incinerated, or whether or not MSNBC is sympathetic to the cause.

A homicidial maniac is a homicidial maniac. None have any business teaching our kids. If they get out of jail and want to scrub toilets from midnight until 6 AM, fine. You don't let them mold the minds of the next generation, unless you want more violence...
Being implicated in a murder from a robbery gone bad doesn't make you a homicidal maniac...that's someone who kills for their own reasons.

-spence

Spence, are you saying that the Brinks robbery, in which 3 were murdered, caused no meaningful panic or taxpayer expense?
Nothing like the recent incident, not even close. That you even ponder the question astounds me.

OK. So in addition to being a munitions expert, youapparently also know all about public economic policy as it relates to criminal investigations involving major crimes.
Yea cauze I'm wicked smaht.

The crimes weren't identical, I never said they were. But I cannot believe you'd want either criminal teaching your kids, although based on the thoughtless drivel you've posted here, maybe you'd have no issue with your kids taught by terrorists, as long as they were liberal terrorists who targeted conservative targets like police officers. But we all know what you'd say about an abortion clinic bomber who killed 4 employees at an abortion clinic.
Now I think you're onto something...good lord.

-spence

The war was the engine behind the radicalization. This wasn't a bunch of communists looking for a cause, their behavior was a by-product.

-spence

the were self-described communist revolutionaries....Ayers to this day refers to himself as a radical leftist communist....they were infact communists looking for a revolution and were in favor of violence and stated this on many occasions....the anti-war crowd was not enamoured with them....

you are digging a very deep hole

the were self-described communist revolutionaries....Ayers to this day refers to himself as a radical leftist communist....they were infact communists looking for a revolution and were in favor of violence and stated this on many occasions....the anti-war crowd was not enamoured with them....

you are digging a very deep hole
Seriously, you're making a mockery of yourself.

When the war started Ayers was in a prep school. I'll bet he was a real hard core commie back then...He was motivated by the war and racism in college. Hell, he's written at length about his beliefs.

Please try and pay attention to the TIMELINE OF EVENTS. I know context doesn't matter to you but in this case it does have some importance.

-spence

Seriously, you're making a mockery of yourself.



-spence

now THAT is very funny!!!!

Breaking News

You've just been upstaged.

Trump: 'Is the Boston Killer Eligible for Obama Care to Bring Him Back to Health?' | NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/20/trump-boston-killer-eligible-obama-care-bring-him-back-health#ixzz2R1E4jUcF)

-spence

spence, you are talking about how much taxpayer money was spent; how angry the murderer was at the time; how much lingerinmg fear the murderer instilled in the populace after the crime...these are things that matter if you are deciding whether or not the person gets the death penalty, or whether or not the person gets put on the FBI's most wanted list.

When the question is, "is this person fit to spend all day, every day, around our kids, milding young minds"...if that's the question, then no sane person considers the details that you are desperately and pathetically trying to inject.

I can see the Board of Ed interviewing someone for a teaching position...that person has pled guilty to mass murder. And acocording to Spence, their qualifications for the job, depend on how much money the taxpayers spent to apprehend them.

That's what you said, Spence. And it's deranged. It sounds unhingded.

For God's sake, put down the Kool Aid for one second at some point in your life. At least, open the windows when you are painting inside.

I think that has to be evaluated in the context of the tension during the Vietnam era where frustrations over inaction or complicity with many issues (like the War and racial inequality) reached a boiling point. Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. That's not to say it was right, but to ignore the societal climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

So if I plant a bomb in your bathroom ventilation it would have to be evaluated in the context of the tension caused by my dissatisfaction in the way you responded to my complaints that you would not do what I want.

That's not to say it was right, . . .

Would you say it was wrong?

. . . but to ignore the social climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

I have commented on that "climate," did not ignore it. But those events were not merely surrounded by a social climate, they were a driving force in the temperature of that climate. They were just as much, or more, the elements surrounding the climate. And it would be irresponsible to claim that those events and their perpetrators were the victims of a social climate.

Well, it seems like the need for physical violence has trended down in direct relation to the end of the Vietnam war and the generational shift that immediately followed.

As JohnnyD has commented more than once, correlation is not causation. If unpopular foreign wars were a cause of civil violence, we should be having young folks bombing all over the time frame of 2003 to the present. The Vietnam war, as ScottW has documented, was not the reason for Weatherman violence. There was a far greater ideological motive for their actions. The anti-war stance was a popular way to gain mass approval for their wider agenda. The generational shift was just another in a continuous shift since the so-called Progressive Era--which did not actually end but has been continually expanding its transformation of American society. Remember Woodrow Wilson's formula for societal change:

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he [the agent of change] wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way . . . Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."

I do see more social progressive influence today (also generational shifts) but in other areas the dynamics appear to be more influenced by day to day politics than macro trends.

Yes, but those day to day politics are not separate from "social progressive influence." The politics are the legal force which has been nearly constantly shifting to greater progressive governance rather than constitutional governance. Those politics grant legality to social progressive influence.

So have you've assessed her work or are you just making assumptions? This goes back to the initial thread, was Columbia "honoring" her violent past or recognizing the contribution she could make to the faculty? I'd note that she also got her education degree there...


For one who is constantly making drive-by assumptions such as you have made throughout this thread then questioning whether I am, is beyond ironic. I haven't used the word "honoring" nor do I see her hiring as unusual. I have pointed out that it is actually appropriate that Columbia hire her because they are at this time quite similar in ideology, and that she is a product of academic progressivism which not only influenced her and her fellow travelers, but was influenced by them. They are probably a match that deserve each other. I am, personally, not comfortable with educational systems injecting political ideology into the classroom. I certainly experienced it in my student days and can only assume, from the frequent reports of it, that it has proliferated. Perhaps she is totally purified from such inclinations. I doubt it, and that is my prerogative. It is from that "perception" that I speak.


If that was true I'd think the progressive movement would have a stronger identity. In fact I don't think the Left has a strong identity at all...There are few in this country that will even self describe themselves as "liberals."

That's why perception is not reality. There are way more than a "few" who vote for "liberals," a moniker I avoid since, as I've explained above "liberals" are not liberal. I don't know what these voters who keep voting for "liberals" (progressives) perceive their personal identity is. But it doesn't seem to affect how they vote. I doubt that most voters, and even more non-voters, have a clue to what a progressive is, nor about the progressive agenda. If they did, they might vote differently. Maybe not. Maybe they identify with the government goodies bestowed on them rather than by whatever label they or their politicians are identified.

That's a stretch. I'd say that most radical groups shed violence because they could no longer get away with it.

Why is it a stretch to say they shed violence because they no longer need it because society has shifted in their direction and placed them in positions of influence to make furthering their cause easier? Are you making another assumption?

Measured against what? Some abstract concept or a real baseline?

The real baseline is the Constitution. Though not too long ago it was denied, there is no longer a denial that we have drifted far from that document and that progressives, fundamentally, wish to rule without it. That is so obvious, not only by the actual method of administrative governance through regulatory agencies, and ridiculously interpreted court cases, but the outright public assertion by influential progressives like Prof. Seidman that the Constitution should be abandoned.

The Constitution was a "real" baseline. What we have now is an arbitrary, shifting, and constantly more centralized one.

Conservatism would be illogical if it didn't accommodate for change. The nuance is in the rate of change.

Conservatism/Constitutionalism accommodates for change. It is called amendment. And it accommodates much change at local levels by will of the people. Centralized progressivism overrides all that. And often without "nuance" but with in-your-face unconstitutional power.

"Constantly shifting" is code. It implies a lack of foundation...that I try and understand context and see things as they really are doesn't mean there's nothing solid underneath. As well, a perceived contradiction may simply be the fault of insufficient supporting detail, or perhaps a conclusion based on bias.

-spence

What? Code? I have created a code? Are you making another assumption? On the one hand you want to assert that new fabrics are woven into the fabric of our society and that they become the new "conservatism." On the other, you imply that "constantly shifting implies a lack of foundation. On the one hand you praise newness, progressive change. On the other hand constant shifting implies a lack of Foundation. On the one hand you consider the Constitution as written to be outdated and of little use to succeeding generations. On the other hand you advocate a "living" Constitution that constantly changes, evolves to suit new generations. On the one hand you are a relativist who believes there are no absolutes, on the other you imply that there is a solid foundation underneath your views.

I am not familiar with what that solid-not-shifting foundation is since I don't recall your expressing it. But your last sentence above which speaks of perceived contradiction (perception is reality?), insufficient supporting detail, or "perhaps" bias, lacks enough definition for me to grasp any solid meaning.

When the war started Ayers was in a prep school. I'll bet he was a real hard core commie back then...He was motivated by the war and racism in college. Hell, he's written at length about his beliefs.

-spence

correct...about the same age as suspect number 2....not sure that 2is a harcore islamist but there seem to be indications and it appears as though he's written about it....he's motivated by a war or jihad and probably religious intolerance toward Islam(racism)... I'm not sure that I'd trust anything that he writes about it in the future particualrly if he's trying to somehow redeem his image and re-enter "mainstream" society

Spence, most of these people grew up in families with long histories of radical leftism and communism...did you read Boudin's bio?
communist revolution was a natural progression for them, ...they embraced it...Ayers wrote a lot about that too......the war was just another reason to hate America just as every incident today is construed as another reason for a protest abroad in certain sectors........much of what he has written is deceptive and dishonest after the fact rehabilitation vomit which you seem to embrace, you seem to pick and choose through the rubble of their history anything that exhonerates while ignoring facts......other members of his clan have discounted his various claims....tough to decide which terrorist to believe....

I'm starting to wonder exactly when you were radicalized......

Breaking News You've just been upstaged. Trump: 'Is the Boston Killer Eligible for Obama Care to Bring Him Back to Health?' | NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/20/trump-boston-killer-eligible-obama-care-bring-him-back-health#ixzz2R1E4jUcF) -spence

if this was said by John Stewart you be admiring the satire.....

Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. -spence

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.

there are many more paralells than Spence is willing to acknowledge...in both cases these are young people who have embraced an ideaology that is incompatible with American culture and antithetical to the principles of it's founding.....each decided that violent means were necessary and acceptable to futher the ideaolgy that they embraced.....both were enjoying the advantages and benefits of living in a free society but decided that the oppressive, tyrannical ideaology that they happen to embrace ought be imposed on American society through violent means....both embraced and sought assistance from America's enemies and those that America is/was at war with idealogically and militarily

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.
Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

Hysterical.

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

"Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate"

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

He says she is a fit teacher of kids, because she was only "implicated", or because she served her time, or because the cost of her crimes to society was below the acceptable threshold, or because the number of innocent deaths at her hands is below the acceptable maximum, or because her crimes didn't instill widespread fear in the populace, or some other such reasoning.

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady.. Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

yeah, shouldn't you offer an option where he's being honest? otherwise he's working awfully hard to sound like an idiot :uhuh:

So if I plant a bomb in your bathroom ventilation it would have to be evaluated in the context of the tension caused by my dissatisfaction in the way you responded to my complaints that you would not do what I want.

That's not to say it was right, . . .

Would you say it was wrong?
I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation...

Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place.

Yes, but those day to day politics are not separate from "social progressive influence." The politics are the legal force which has been nearly constantly shifting to greater progressive governance rather than constitutional governance. Those politics grant legality to social progressive influence.
I don't see a constant shift as much as a step function which can be driven by many factors. Government got bigger under Reagan but was it a product of "social progressive influence?" I guess the answer could be that conservatives weren't acting like conservatives. But to my earlier point, how long does this have to persist before you have to snap a new baseline?

That's why perception is not reality. There are way more than a "few" who vote for "liberals," a moniker I avoid since, as I've explained above "liberals" are not liberal. I don't know what these voters who keep voting for "liberals" (progressives) perceive their personal identity is. But it doesn't seem to affect how they vote. I doubt that most voters, and even more non-voters, have a clue to what a progressive is, nor about the progressive agenda. If they did, they might vote differently. Maybe not. Maybe they identify with the government goodies bestowed on them rather than by whatever label they or their politicians are identified.
Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. I don't think most voters really care about labels or government goodies, they vote based on a level of comfort with the candidate that often transcends even policy.

The real baseline is the Constitution. Though not too long ago it was denied, there is no longer a denial that we have drifted far from that document and that progressives, fundamentally, wish to rule without it. That is so obvious, not only by the actual method of administrative governance through regulatory agencies, and ridiculously interpreted court cases, but the outright public assertion by influential progressives like Prof. Seidman that the Constitution should be abandoned.
Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!

What? Code? I have created a code? Are you making another assumption? On the one hand you want to assert that new fabrics are woven into the fabric of our society and that they become the new "conservatism." On the other, you imply that "constantly shifting implies a lack of foundation. On the one hand you praise newness, progressive change. On the other hand constant shifting implies a lack of Foundation. On the one hand you consider the Constitution as written to be outdated and of little use to succeeding generations. On the other hand you advocate a "living" Constitution that constantly changes, evolves to suit new generations. On the one hand you are a relativist who believes there are no absolutes, on the other you imply that there is a solid foundation underneath your views.
Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?

I am not familiar with what that solid-not-shifting foundation is since I don't recall your expressing it. But your last sentence above which speaks of perceived contradiction (perception is reality?), insufficient supporting detail, or "perhaps" bias, lacks enough definition for me to grasp any solid meaning.

Exactly.

-spence

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.
Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.
I don't think I've ever said they weren't motivated by socialist philosophy. There are a lot of parallels to the Occupy movement today. Then as now there's a vein of truth to the perceived injustice...I don't think this makes them less American.

And just because hippies eschewed bombs for fornication doesn't mean that a mass of the entire generation wasn't swept up in counterculture. It's all related...

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.
Is Ayers considered more "mainstream" because of his radical views or because of his moderated social work? I think people are judging his position based on his recent work product rather than past actions. Or are you implying that giving credibility to his educational work is a defacto endorsement of his radical past?

-spence

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

The answer to your question is there, do I have to repeat myself?

-spence

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

I certainly said she was convicted of murder perhaps even more than once. The irony here is your accusation of "altering teh facts" only came about by taking my remarks out of thread context.

-spence

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.
The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence

The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence

ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE :fence:

ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE :fence:

God, more irony.

-spence

I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.

Saying that their actions were wrong is definitive, unequivocal. But your "not saying that it was right" is not quite so certain. It is not saying that their actions were wrong.

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation...

That he resorted to the thing against which he protested shows a lack of clear ideological understanding. Fighting war with war is fighting your own beliefs. Which leads me to think either he was an intellectual retard or he really wasn't against war. The latter leads me to think that war, for him, was not wrong, that he was not "anti-war," but that what was evil and to fight against was a social order with which he violently disagreed--capitalism, etc. And I don't see any change in his ideology. And, I think, he has found a comfortable place where he can further his cause, without violence. Because the social order has changed sufficiently enough to welcome and accommodate his agenda.

Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place.

Yes, there is a greater expectation today that collectivist demands will be accommodated. The something blowing in the wind that Dillon sang about has settled and paved a peaceful path to progressive socialism.

I don't see a constant shift as much as a step function which can be driven by many factors. Government got bigger under Reagan but was it a product of "social progressive influence?"

Absolutely. He never had the House. And for some of the time he didn't have the Senate. Crafty Tip O'neal thwarted spending cuts and Reagan had to fight the Cold War as well as a progressive Congress which included leftist, centrist Republicans. He slowed the growth, and showed a path to further a "Conservative" agenda, but Bush senior wimped and strayed from the path and the momentum was lost.

I guess the answer could be that conservatives weren't acting like conservatives.

There were far more progressives (including Republicans) than actual conservatives of a Reagan stripe. Remember that the Republican elites did not want Reagan. He won election because he and his truly conservative agenda appealed to the electorate. He won in spite of Republican establishment. It was that establishment, not conservatives, that wasn't acting like conservatives

But to my earlier point, how long does this have to persist before you have to snap a new baseline?

A fairer question might be whether there is any longer a baseline. I mentioned that the Constitution was a real baseline. Unless you consider whim, personal opinion, differing and undefined notions of "social justice" as "solid" and "real," what do you consider a "new" baseline rather than a constantly leftward shifting "line?"

Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. I don't think most voters really care about labels or government goodies, they vote based on a level of comfort with the candidate that often transcends even policy.

So is a personal level of comfort with candidates the new baseline? And are you denying that the level of comfort is divorced from what government will do for them, and that "labels" have no influence either positive or negative?

Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!

No, he doesn't challenge the Constitution, he advocates abandoning it. And he does so not only because he believes, as good progressives do, that it impedes efficient governance, especially from a central power where guys get together and decide what is good for us and then have to figure out how get around a 200-year-old parchment in order to make good stuff happen, but because we don't follow it anyway. And that is a main reason why some have forgotten why they need it.

Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?

That may be what it implies to you. But I mean no implication. I mean "constantly shifting." That is not code. That is meant to be taken as "constantly shifting," not a code to mean something other or to imply something else. And progressive elements becoming part of the "conservative fabric" is also part of the constant shift leftward. The progressive elements, those that are truly "progressive" elements that favor central administrative government rather than constitutional government have not been woven into the true "conservative" fabric. Republican and "conservative" are not the same animal. The Republican party, not conservatives, have been shifting leftward, progressively, and abandoning conservatism for a long time. There is a resurgence in the party toward the "conservative fabric" by a new breed. Whether they will be co-opted by the establishment or not, may influence the leftward shift in another direction.

Exactly.

-spence

Absolutely.

Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.

Just as someone who will wage war to end war is not truly anti-war, so would someone who murders to stop abortion (because it is murder) not truly be against murder. Are you "implying" that one is right because of the other? What is your point?

I don't think I've ever said they weren't motivated by socialist philosophy. There are a lot of parallels to the Occupy movement today. Then as now there's a vein of truth to the perceived injustice...I don't think this makes them less American.

Being a socialist is anti-American in the founding sense of what an American is. In the current sense, which has been constantly shifting leftward, being socialist is quite American.

And just because hippies eschewed bombs for fornication doesn't mean that a mass of the entire generation wasn't swept up in counterculture. It's all related...

The "counterculture" generation was internally "related" in tangential ways. But in the main, it was a very mixed bag. The hippies and the violent radicals had much that appeared to be in common, but in terms of violence they were eons apart. And so were they distanced from each other in the fundamental transformation of society from one of the personal pursuit of happiness to one whose happiness was granted by an all-powerful central government.

Is Ayers considered more "mainstream" because of his radical views or because of his moderated social work? I think people are judging his position based on his recent work product rather than past actions. Or are you implying that giving credibility to his educational work is a defacto endorsement of his radical past?

-spence

Different "people" are judging from different points of view. The progressive left are judging his work product as it relates to its agenda which is fundamentally similar to his expressed ideology, which has not changed much from the past.

I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.

...you've justified their actions repeatedly...go back and read...."that's not to say their actions were not wrong" reminds me of my favorite David Ciccilini quote " it was never my intention to mislead anyone intentionally"

Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation... precisely when did Ayers engage in conventional means that failed to get a response?

Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place. that's correct...today, peaceful protest by pro-American Tea Party type organizations are ridiculed by people like you and protesters are referred to as terrorists, radicals and extremists by like-minded while violent, messy protests by OCCUPY or Union types are applauded and justified and deemed "understandable"....... "which is not to say they're not wrong" .....when they break things or injure but given the circumstances .....probably their only alternative or something like that........there's a pattern


Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. the current levels of chronic government dependence are concrete proof of chronic government dependence

Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!
searchng very hard for redeeming value...you are getting good at this

Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?





-spence

so much constantly shifting psycho-babble.....and irony...isn't there?