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:

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

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)

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

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

"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...

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...

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

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

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

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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

: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:

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

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

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 .....

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?

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?

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

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."

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.