Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 04-20-2013, 04:40 PM   #121
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Seriously, you're making a mockery of yourself.



-spence
now THAT is very funny!!!!
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 05:39 PM   #122
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Breaking News

You've just been upstaged.

Trump: 'Is the Boston Killer Eligible for Obama Care to Bring Him Back to Health?' | NewsBusters

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 07:12 PM   #123
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
spence, you are talking about how much taxpayer money was spent; how angry the murderer was at the time; how much lingerinmg fear the murderer instilled in the populace after the crime...these are things that matter if you are deciding whether or not the person gets the death penalty, or whether or not the person gets put on the FBI's most wanted list.

When the question is, "is this person fit to spend all day, every day, around our kids, milding young minds"...if that's the question, then no sane person considers the details that you are desperately and pathetically trying to inject.

I can see the Board of Ed interviewing someone for a teaching position...that person has pled guilty to mass murder. And acocording to Spence, their qualifications for the job, depend on how much money the taxpayers spent to apprehend them.

That's what you said, Spence. And it's deranged. It sounds unhingded.

For God's sake, put down the Kool Aid for one second at some point in your life. At least, open the windows when you are painting inside.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 08:29 PM   #124
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.

Last edited by detbuch; 04-20-2013 at 11:18 PM.. Reason: typos
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:05 AM   #125
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

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.

-spence
correct...about the same age as suspect number 2....not sure that 2is a harcore islamist but there seem to be indications and it appears as though he's written about it....he's motivated by a war or jihad and probably religious intolerance toward Islam(racism)... I'm not sure that I'd trust anything that he writes about it in the future particualrly if he's trying to somehow redeem his image and re-enter "mainstream" society

Spence, most of these people grew up in families with long histories of radical leftism and communism...did you read Boudin's bio?
communist revolution was a natural progression for them, ...they embraced it...Ayers wrote a lot about that too......the war was just another reason to hate America just as every incident today is construed as another reason for a protest abroad in certain sectors........much of what he has written is deceptive and dishonest after the fact rehabilitation vomit which you seem to embrace, you seem to pick and choose through the rubble of their history anything that exhonerates while ignoring facts......other members of his clan have discounted his various claims....tough to decide which terrorist to believe....

I'm starting to wonder exactly when you were radicalized......
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:08 AM   #126
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
if this was said by John Stewart you be admiring the satire.....
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:25 PM   #127
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.

Last edited by detbuch; 04-21-2013 at 10:47 PM.. Reason: typos
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 04:08 AM   #128
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
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

Last edited by scottw; 04-22-2013 at 06:23 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 07:44 AM   #129
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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?
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:25 AM   #130
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,436
While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:43 AM   #131
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
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?
Hysterical.

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:46 AM   #132
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.
"Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate"

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

He says she is a fit teacher of kids, because she was only "implicated", or because she served her time, or because the cost of her crimes to society was below the acceptable threshold, or because the number of innocent deaths at her hands is below the acceptable maximum, or because her crimes didn't instill widespread fear in the populace, or some other such reasoning.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 04-22-2013 at 09:02 AM..
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 10:25 PM   #133
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady.. Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.
yeah, shouldn't you offer an option where he's being honest? otherwise he's working awfully hard to sound like an idiot
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 11:19 AM   #134
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 11:37 AM   #135
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 11:39 AM   #136
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...
The answer to your question is there, do I have to repeat myself?

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 11:41 AM   #137
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.
I certainly said she was convicted of murder perhaps even more than once. The irony here is your accusation of "altering teh facts" only came about by taking my remarks out of thread context.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 11:58 AM   #138
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.
The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 01:01 PM   #139
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence
ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 03:23 PM   #140
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 16,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE
God, more irony.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 09:27 PM   #141
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.

Last edited by detbuch; 05-04-2013 at 09:45 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 10:08 PM   #142
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Would someone who was anti-abortion because it was murder kill someone to stop it? I can't believe they would either.

Just as someone who will wage war to end war is not truly anti-war, so would someone who murders to stop abortion (because it is murder) not truly be against murder. Are you "implying" that one is right because of the other? What is your point?

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.

Being a socialist is anti-American in the founding sense of what an American is. In the current sense, which has been constantly shifting leftward, being socialist is quite 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...

The "counterculture" generation was internally "related" in tangential ways. But in the main, it was a very mixed bag. The hippies and the violent radicals had much that appeared to be in common, but in terms of violence they were eons apart. And so were they distanced from each other in the fundamental transformation of society from one of the personal pursuit of happiness to one whose happiness was granted by an all-powerful central government.

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
Different "people" are judging from different points of view. The progressive left are judging his work product as it relates to its agenda which is fundamentally similar to his expressed ideology, which has not changed much from the past.

Last edited by detbuch; 05-04-2013 at 10:48 PM.. Reason: typo
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 11:36 PM   #143
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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?

Last edited by scottw; 05-06-2013 at 03:21 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com