Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

Page 4 of 5

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Why do liberal universities honor murderers? (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=81850)

scottw

04-20-2013 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995407)

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"

spence

04-20-2013 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 995411)

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

scottw

04-20-2013 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995413)

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

spence

04-20-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 995418)

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

scottw

04-20-2013 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995419)

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

detbuch

04-20-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995395)

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.

spence

04-20-2013 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 995425)

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

spence

04-20-2013 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 995428)

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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

scottw

04-20-2013 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995441)

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

scottw

04-20-2013 01:07 PM

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

Jim in CT

04-20-2013 01:08 PM

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...

Jim in CT

04-20-2013 01:17 PM

[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?

Jim in CT

04-20-2013 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995441)

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...

Nebe	04-20-2013 01:32 PM

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

scottw

04-20-2013 01:48 PM

[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!.....

scottw

04-20-2013 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995441)

psycho-babble

Nebe	04-20-2013 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 995460)

psycho-babble

Best quote evah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

04-20-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 995446)

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

spence

04-20-2013 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 995451)

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?

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

spence

04-20-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 995452)

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Oh brother...

Quote:

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

spence

04-20-2013 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 995453)

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

Jim in CT

04-20-2013 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 995453)

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.

Nebe	04-20-2013 03:44 PM

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

spence

04-20-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 995472)

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

Jim in CT

04-20-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995466)

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...

Jim in CT

04-20-2013 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995475)

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.

spence

04-20-2013 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 995476)

"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

04-20-2013 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 995478)

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

scottw

04-20-2013 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 995464)

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

spence

04-20-2013 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 995481)

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Page 4 of 5

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page