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......

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 ?...

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

You're stereotyping.

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

.



[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.

I'm just curious, but you do realize there was a pretty big counter culture movement in the 1960's don't you?

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 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"

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

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

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 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

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

-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.

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.

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...

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

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

My accusation of Jim being played had nothing to do with ideas, it was about his inference lacking in facts.

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

"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

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

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

"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?

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!.....

psycho-babble

Best quote evah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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

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

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

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

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..."

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...

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.

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

Nothing like the recent incident, not even close. That you even ponder the question astounds me.

Yea cauze I'm wicked smaht.

Now I think you're onto something...good lord.

-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

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