Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

YO, SPENCE - You accused me of being "casual" in my using the terrorist label with these violent kooks. So please enlighten us...what is it that differentiates the Weather Underground from terrorists?

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. 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...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...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.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

[scottw]

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. 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...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

.

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...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. 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...

To think you can set off bombs merely for protest and that eventually someone wouldn't be injured, or killed, is worse than naïve. It is, as you say, radical and violent. One can change, however, and "grow up" which is what we are supposed to assume these people did.

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...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.

The comparison is not to the immediate physical results, but to the eventual purpose.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Ayers, himself, questions the legality of what they did, convicted or not, and the "robbery at that", for which Boudin served her time, shortened through the grace of a plea bargain, involved being a willing accomplice to killing and maiming.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

And what would that recent work be? Is it essentially the same work as that of their "misguided youth" but with the cover of academic respectability. Do they still want to bring down imperialist, capitalist America, and transform it into a socialist, Marxist system? Ayers still "admires" Marx. What are they teaching under cover of liberalism? Have they merely transformed from naïve, violent radicals to respectable mainstream progressives that have found a home in a fellow-traveler ideology which has more peacefully and effectively transformed this country in the direction they wish to go? And, like most "controllers," have they found life richer and more influential at the top of the heap than the bottom? And yes, the point of this thread is the connection of academia to the growth of progressivism. It is the original home of that movement and its greatest proponent and facilitator.

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

And you are being played by an older movement, despite your seeming dislike of oldness and infatuation of new, "smart" stuff. You seem to view progressivism as something new (perhaps the title mesmerizes you) when it is older now in this country than the Constitution was when the progressives began their assault on our founding. But it does evolve. It is becoming more dictatorial than the original progressives intended. Or maybe they did intend it so.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

To think you can set off bombs merely for protest and that eventually someone wouldn't be injured, or killed, is worse than naïve. It is, as you say, radical and violent. One can change, however, and "grow up" which is what we are supposed to assume these people did.

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.

The comparison is not to the immediate physical results, but to the eventual purpose.

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

Ayers, himself, questions the legality of what they did, convicted or not, and the "robbery at that", for which Boudin served her time, shortened through the grace of a plea bargain, involved being a willing accomplice to killing and maiming.

And Boudin has expressed her regret for her actions, served 22 years and appears to have moved on.

And what would that recent work be? Is it essentially the same work as that of their "misguided youth" but with the cover of academic respectability. Do they still want to bring down imperialist, capitalist America, and transform it into a socialist, Marxist system? Ayers still "admires" Marx.

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.

And yes, the point of this thread is the connection of academia to the growth of progressivism. It is the original home of that movement and its greatest proponent and facilitator.

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.

And you are being played by an older movement, despite your seeming dislike of oldness and infatuation of new, "smart" stuff.

You're stereotyping.

You seem to view progressivism as something new (perhaps the title mesmerizes you) when it is older now in this country than the Constitution was when the progressives began their assault on our founding. But it does evolve. It is becoming more dictatorial than the original progressives intended. Or maybe they did intend it so.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Is Ayers still a hard left winger? I'd bet he certainly is...that doesn't mean he doesn't have a place. . -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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

[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]

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

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.

Yes, the jailbreak of Timothy Leary being a critical component of the grand scheme...

Hard to imagine taking over the world without some preparation



-spence

[scottw]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

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...

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."

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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]

Originally Posted by 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.


-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

[scottw]

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]

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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 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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.
-spence

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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!

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

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.

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

Oh brother...

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

"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

psycho-babble

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

psycho-babble

Best quote evah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

. . . but to ignore the social climate these events were surrounded by would be irresponsible.

I have commented on that "climate," did not ignore it. But those events were not merely surrounded by a social climate, they were a driving force in the temperature of that climate. They were just as much, or more, the elements surrounding the climate. And it would be irresponsible to claim that those events and their perpetrators were the victims of a social climate.

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.

As JohnnyD has commented more than once, correlation is not causation. If unpopular foreign wars were a cause of civil violence, we should be having young folks bombing all over the time frame of 2003 to the present. The Vietnam war, as ScottW has documented, was not the reason for Weatherman violence. There was a far greater ideological motive for their actions. The anti-war stance was a popular way to gain mass approval for their wider agenda. The generational shift was just another in a continuous shift since the so-called Progressive Era--which did not actually end but has been continually expanding its transformation of American society. Remember Woodrow Wilson's formula for societal change:

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he [the agent of change] wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way . . . Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."

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.

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.

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...


For one who is constantly making drive-by assumptions such as you have made throughout this thread then questioning whether I am, is beyond ironic. I haven't used the word "honoring" nor do I see her hiring as unusual. I have pointed out that it is actually appropriate that Columbia hire her because they are at this time quite similar in ideology, and that she is a product of academic progressivism which not only influenced her and her fellow travelers, but was influenced by them. They are probably a match that deserve each other. I am, personally, not comfortable with educational systems injecting political ideology into the classroom. I certainly experienced it in my student days and can only assume, from the frequent reports of it, that it has proliferated. Perhaps she is totally purified from such inclinations. I doubt it, and that is my prerogative. It is from that "perception" that I speak.


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 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.

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

Why is it a stretch to say they shed violence because they no longer need it because society has shifted in their direction and placed them in positions of influence to make furthering their cause easier? Are you making another assumption?

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

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.

The Constitution was a "real" baseline. What we have now is an arbitrary, shifting, and constantly more centralized one.

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

Conservatism/Constitutionalism accommodates for change. It is called amendment. And it accommodates much change at local levels by will of the people. Centralized progressivism overrides all that. And often without "nuance" but with in-your-face unconstitutional power.

"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

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.

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.

[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

Some looked to more violent means to make a statement as peaceful methods didn't appear to be working. -spence

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.

[scottw]

there are many more paralells than Spence is willing to acknowledge...in both cases these are young people who have embraced an ideaology that is incompatible with American culture and antithetical to the principles of it's founding.....each decided that violent means were necessary and acceptable to futher the ideaolgy that they embraced.....both were enjoying the advantages and benefits of living in a free society but decided that the oppressive, tyrannical ideaology that they happen to embrace ought be imposed on American society through violent means....both embraced and sought assistance from America's enemies and those that America is/was at war with idealogically and militarily

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.

Those in the 60's counter culture who were truly against war were the hippie types. The so-called and self-labeled flower children. They believed in "flower power" not guns and bombs. Not violence. They flashed the peace sign not fists. Their "protests" were expressed in pot, free sex, and music. The more serious formed communes or groups in which they shared their stash, their bodies, and their food (usually "natural" and home cooked). They didn't engage in political movements or agendas. Their view on violence and the war was expressed as "make love not war," or by sayings like "fighting for peace is like f--king for virginity."

The ones who resorted to violence did so for a larger purpose. They did have a political, social agenda. And yes it was a leftist-Marxist-socialist-communist agenda. Sorry, but that is the truth. Marx was on lips of all from the Black Panthers, Symbionese Liberation Army, SDS, Weatherman, Ayers, Boudin, Dohrn, etc. Marxism was a revolutionary method/philosophy they embraced, rationally or irrationally, intelligently or stupidly, to achieve racial or societal liberation from capitalist pigs, especially the white wealthy ones. And their pitiful attempts at violence were just foolish lightweight imitations of what they thought was necessary in a Marxist revolution. Their goal was not merely to end a war. It was to transform society to their liking--war or no war. And they had to convince the masses to join them. The war was actually just another grievance they could add to their lists, and one which could appeal to the greater society more than what their true agenda would. Making a big issue of the war and then tacking on, by-the-way, the inequities and injustices of capitalist, imperialist, racist America it was hoped would persuade the masses to follow their vanguard to social justice.

I don't think I've ever said they weren't motivated by socialist philosophy. There are a lot of parallels to the Occupy movement today. Then as now there's a vein of truth to the perceived injustice...I don't think this makes them less American.

And just because hippies eschewed bombs for fornication doesn't mean that a mass of the entire generation wasn't swept up in counterculture. It's all related...

Though they have been "rehabilitated" from their violent ways, they also understand that the violence became counter-productive and that, now, it is not at all needed. Society has been turned. Most of the rhetorical wedge issues with which the great "middle" might sympathize have been ameliorated so it would be difficult now to persuade by radical, violent means. And it was no longer necessary. Enough of the "working class," and the unions and poor and unemployed, and the academic elites, and even of the top echelons of the political class had shifted in their direction. And the former radicals have been given the opportunity to help shape the very transformation they originally wanted--without violence. They are no longer "radicals." They are mainstream. But their philosophical, political agenda has not changed.

Is Ayers considered more "mainstream" because of his radical views or because of his moderated social work? I think people are judging his position based on his recent work product rather than past actions. Or are you implying that giving credibility to his educational work is a defacto endorsement of his radical past?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

[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?

[scottw]

[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!.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The actions of Ayers and others were more violent protest than anything else. They communicated their target in advance with a specific purpose. 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...

That's not to say it's not violent, not wrong or something to admire...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.

I don't think Ayers was ever even convicted of any crimes. Boudin certainly was (a robbery at that) and served her time.

Are they being "honored" or just recognized for their recent work?

What's the point of the entire thread? I really can't believe you're mulling this stuff over at night. You've been played by an election year (2 elections ago even!) hoax and for some reason just can't let it go.

I'll give you this, your faith is strong.

-spence

"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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

None of these people were "mass murders".

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...

For once please do your own research, there's plenty of information online that debunks all these claims.

-spence