Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

Would you say it was wrong?

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

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

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

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

I don't see a constant shift as much as a step function which can be driven by many factors. Government got bigger under Reagan but was it a product of "social progressive influence?" I guess the answer could be that conservatives weren't acting like conservatives. But to my earlier point, how long does this have to persist before you have to snap a new baseline?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

-spence

[detbuch]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

-spence

Absolutely.

[scottw]

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?