Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I think I've said many times their actions were wrong...and I never used the word victim...I said byproduct.
...you've justified their actions repeatedly...go back and read...."that's not to say their actions were not wrong" reminds me of my favorite David Ciccilini quote " it was never my intention to mislead anyone intentionally"
Reading Ayers own writing it's clear that the shift to violent protest the war and race issues was precisely because more conventional means weren't getting a response. Without the pressure cooker of the War it's a totally different situation... precisely when did Ayers engage in conventional means that failed to get a response?
Comparing protest today vs 40 years ago isn't exactly fair either as our society is in a very different place. that's correct...today, peaceful protest by pro-American Tea Party type organizations are ridiculed by people like you and protesters are referred to as terrorists, radicals and extremists by like-minded while violent, messy protests by OCCUPY or Union types are applauded and justified and deemed "understandable"....... "which is not to say they're not wrong" .....when they break things or injure but given the circumstances .....probably their only alternative or something like that........there's a pattern
Well, it's easy to claim a video of a woman dancing with her "Obama Phone" is concrete proof of chronic government dependence. the current levels of chronic government dependence are concrete proof of chronic government dependence
Without intellectuals like Seidman who challenge the Constitution some may forget why they need it!
searchng very hard for redeeming value...you are getting good at this
Constantly shifting implies there is no foundation on which I would disagree. There are some elements of progressivism that have become even part of the conservative fabric. Wouldn't that presume that there's mutually agreed to value?
-spence
|
so much constantly shifting psycho-babble.....and irony...isn't there?