Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (ncluding police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

YO, SPENCE -

In light of what Scott posted, and in light iof the robbery that killed 2 cops and a security guard, let me ask you straight up...are the Weather Underground terrorists, or not?

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?

If those that bomb abortion clinincs are terrorists, and of course they are, I fail to see how the Weather Underground fails to meet the criteria. Please, don't keep that wisdom and knowledge to yourself...do the liberal thing, and share the wealth!

We're all ears, and are giddy with anticipation...

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

. I don't believe anyone ever was injured from their actions
-spence

You've brought this up a couple of times here. You are sayng that Ayers isn't the moral equivalent of a homicidal maniac, because he didn't kill anyone. Butthe only reason he didn't kill anyone, is because his bombs (planted with the intent to kill) didn't go off.

Do you really believe that?

Let's put that in context of what happened in Boston. If that murderer did everything the same...formulating his plan, research, decision-making, assembling the bomb, planting the bomb...but the bomb didn't detonate because he forgot to connect 2 wires...does that make him less evil, less of a homocisial maniac, more fit to teach your children, than we view that person today?

If all that matters is the body count (and intent isn't pertinent), what do you think of Ted Kennedy? He has just as many dead bodies in his wake as James Earl Ray (who murdered Martin Luther King), so do you view those 2 men the same way? In your eyes, are they equally fit to teach your children?

In terms of moral culpability, it obviously doesn't matter that the Weather Underground didn't kill anyone. The act of planting the bombs, with the intent they had, is what makes them homicidal terrorists. Not the results...The outcome speaks to their ineptitude, not to their moral culpability.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

"what's the point of this thread?"

Ah yes. When you know a conservative is correct, you respond with "so what?"

"How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?"

This news came out this past week.

"for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?"

Now THAT, Spence, is world-class spin. You neglected to point out that she assisted in the murder of 2 police officers and a security guard. Are details, shmee-tails.

I have no problem with parole and rehabilitation. But that's not the same thing as HONORING someone with a post educating children.

"I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone."

Spence, please point out where I said Bill Ayers was a murderer? I did say he was, by his own admission, a leader of the weather Underground, which did murder people.

"Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "

I said he spoke via a video feed, and that is true. Are you literally making up this stuff to refute me?

"Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread"

Yes. Violent, liberal radicals, who are still glorified by your side.

"all appear pretty intelligent "

Based on WHAT? How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know Abu Mumia Jamal is intelligent, did you give him an IQ test on death row?


"that you casually throw out the T word"

OK. So according to you, the Weather Underground were not terrorists? Please explain why not.

I don't use that word casually. It is you who refuses to use that word when it appropeiately applies to those who share your ideology.

One of your moset deranged diatribes ever, and that is saying something.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.


Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...Spence, these people were motivated not only by the Vietnam War but also by their love and admiration of Communism, Marx and Lenin etc. which is very consistent in their rhetoric and writings, they allied with Cuba, North Vietnam, China and dreamt of and took action to presumably overthrow our system of government/Constitution and institute a communist/marxist form of government that they found preferrable(sounds a little too familiar)...which part of America did they not hate?..probably just the part where their rich parents were able to fund their radicalism and the freedom that America offered to express themselves I guess[/COLOR]

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman first organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters.

Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the US government.[3]

With revolutionary positions characterized by Black liberation rhetoric,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and escape of Timothy Leary. The "Days of Rage", their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO).[4]

At an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969, the National Office attempted to persuade unaffiliated delegates not to endorse a takeover of SDS by Progressive Labor who had packed the convention with their supporters.[8] At the beginning of the convention, two position papers were passed out by the National Office leadership, one a revised statement of Klonksy's RYM manifesto, the other called "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows". The latter document outlined the position of the group that would become the Weathermen. It had been signed by Karen Ashley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Howie Machtinger, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd, and Steve Tappis. The document called for creating a clandestine revolutionary party.

"The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party will be impossible. A revolutionary mass movement is different from the traditional revisionist mass base of "sympathizers". Rather it is akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle."[9]

"Weatherman would shove the war down their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. 'Turn the imperialists' war into a civil war', in Lenin's words. And we were going to kick ass".

In July 1969, 30 members of Weatherman leadership traveled to Cuba and met with North Vietnamese representatives to gain from their revolutionary experience. The North Vietnamese requested armed political action in order to stop the U.S. Government's war in Vietnam. Subsequently, they accepted funding, training, recommendations on tactics and slogans from Cuba, and perhaps explosives as well.

The "Flint War Council," was a series of meetings of the Weather Underground Organization and associates in Flint, Michigan, that took place from 27–31 December 1969.[60] During these meetings, the decisions were made for the Weather Underground Organization to go underground [22] and to "engage in guerilla warfare against the U.S. government."[61] This decision was made in response to increased pressure from law enforcement,[62] and a belief that underground guerilla warfare was the best way to combat the U.S. government.[61]

On February 16, 1970 a nail bomb placed on a window ledge of the Park Police substation in the Upper Haight neighborhood of San Francisco exploded at 10:45 p.m. The blast killed police Sergeant Brian McDonnell. Law enforcement suspected the Weather Underground but was unable to prove conclusively that the organization was involved.[64] A second officer, Robert Fogarty, was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel. Secret federal grand juries were convened in 2001 and again in 2009 to re-open the Park Precinct cold case in an attempt to again tie WUO members Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Howie Machtinger and others to the deadly bombing.[65] Ultimately, it was concluded that members of the Black Liberation Army, whom WUO members affiliated with while underground, were responsible for not only this action but also the bombing of another police precinct in San Francisco as well as bombing the Catholic Church funeral services of the police officer killed in the Park Precinct bombing in the early summer of 1970.

probably not coincidentally, three members were killed the next month when a nail bomb that they were construction exploded in their safe house apartment

On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of a Non-Commissioned Officers’ (NCO) dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[2] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion.

An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed enough explosive to "level ... both sides of the street".

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Agree, there's a lot that you don't seem to get.

First...what's the point of this thread? How long has this information been fermenting in your belly such that you just had to get it out?

Kathy Boudin was sent to prison and served her term for being an accomplice to a theft that turned violent. What ever happened to a debt to society being paid in full?

I don't believe Bill Ayers was ever convicted of murder or terrorism. Certainly he was a radical back then, but did his actions ever actually kill anyone? I'd think to be a murderer you'd have to have killed someone. Also, it's worth noting that his actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America...it was what they saw as our complicit engagement in an unconscionable war. Had he been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way.

Ayers wasn't Obama's political mentor, that's been debunked as an election year myth.

Mumai Abu-Jamal didn't speak at Wesleyan "The same Wesleyan where Antonin Scalia was heckled and had condoms thrown at him", he was invited to speak at The Evergreen State College. He wasn't chosen by the college, he was chosen by the GRADUATING CLASS of 1999 no less! While I can't say if he's guilty or innocent it does appear there's a significant amount of information that contests he had a fair trial.

Interestingly enough all three people share a common thread, regardless of their history they all appear pretty intelligent and have moved forward to share their experiences and help others.

As usual Jim, you've gotten pretty much every aspect of your post wrong...worse...that you casually throw out the T word without any real regard for context or meaning speaks volumes.

-spence

"it's worth noting that his (Ayers') actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America"

So what motivated him? It wasn't a desire to lead a violent revolt against the feds? .

"Had he (Ayers) been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way"

Also stupid and demonstrably false. I have said many times that those who bomb abortion clinics are clearly terrorists.

I look at things objectively Spence. It is you, not me, who is completely, 100% blinded by ideology.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"it's worth noting that his (Ayers') actions weren't motivated by a hatred for America"

So what motivated him? It wasn't a desire to lead a violent revolt against the feds? .

if you read anything about Ayers and his fellow travellers they were motivted by an intense dislike of the American form of government and Capitalism and "American Imperialism"...on and on...much the same rhetoric that enemies of America have used to this day...the Veitnam War was simply a vehical that they used to launch and further their agenda, recruiting and fuel for their rage....they intended "fundamental transformation" of the American system and decided that violent means were acceptable....they've since changed their "posture", but not their ideaology

"Had he (Ayers) been targeting abortion clinics you'd be spinning the other way"

Also stupid and demonstrably false. I have said many times that those who bomb abortion clinics are clearly terrorists.

clearly, but Spence's ability to find excusable, acceptable or justified certain actions based on ideaology and completely overlook facts has him supposing that you do the same

I look at things objectively Spence. this is probably dangerous for any of us to state It is you, not me, who is completely, 100% blinded by ideology.

there is a lot that is revealing.....

[scottw]

Ms. Boudin has a fascinating Wiki page....


highlights.....


Her great-uncle was Louis B. Boudin, a Marxist theorist.

Her father, attorney Leonard Boudin, had represented such controversial clients as Judith Coplon, Fidel Castro, and Paul Robeson.[2] A National Lawyers Guild attorney, Leonard Boudin was the law partner of Victor Rabinowitz, himself counsel to numerous left-wing organizations.

1965, her last year at Bryn Mawr was spent studying in the Soviet Union. She was paid 75 rubles a month by the Soviet government and, according to her résumé, taught on a Soviet collective farm.


In the 1960s and 1970s, Boudin became heavily involved with the Weather Underground, along with Cathy Wilkerson, was a survivor of the 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, the premature detonation of a nail bomb that had been intended for a soldiers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.[3] Boudin was 27 at the time.

A declassified FBI report on foreign contacts of the Weather Underground Organization produced by the FBI’s Chicago Field Office reported that, "On February 10, 1976, a source in a position to possess such information advised that Leonard Boudin ... had indicated to a friend that Kathie [sic] was presently in Cuba."[citation needed] The law firm of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., provide legal representation for the Cuban government in the United States.

In 1981, when Kathy Boudin was 38 years old, she and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York. After Boudin dropped her infant son, Chesa, at a baby sitter's, she took the wheel of the getaway vehicle, a U-Haul truck.

She waited in a nearby parking lot as her heavily armed accomplices took another vehicle to a local mall where a Brinks truck was making a delivery. They confronted the guards and gunfire immediately broke out, severely wounding guard Joe Trombino and killing his co-worker, Peter Paige. The four then took $1.6 million in cash and met with Boudin.

An alert high-school student called the police after spotting the gang abandoning the getaway vehicle and entering the U-Haul. A police officer spotted and pulled over the U-Haul, but they could see only Boudin in the driver's seat. Boudin then got out of the cab, and raised her hands.

The police officers who caught them testified that Boudin, feigning innocence, pleaded with them to put down their guns and got them to drop their guard; Boudin said she remained silent, that the officers relaxed spontaneously. After the police lowered their weapons, six of the men in the back of the truck armed with automatic weapons came out of the back of the truck, surprising the four police officers, one of whom, Waverly Brown, was killed instantly. Boudin and David Gilbert, a Weatherman radical and the father of Boudin's infant son, allegedly acted as decoys as well as getaway drivers: The Brinks robbers the police were searching for were all from the Black Liberation Army and drove a red car. Officer Edward O'Grady lived long enough to empty his revolver, but as he reloaded, he was shot several times with an M16. Ninety minutes later, he died in hospital. The other two officers escaped with only minor injuries. The occupants of the U-Haul scattered, some climbing into another getaway car, others carjacking a nearby motorist while Boudin attempted to flee on foot. An off-duty corrections officer, Michael J. Koch, apprehended her shortly after the shootout. When she was arrested, Boudin gave her name as Barbara Edson.


The majority of the defendants received three consecutive sentences of 25 years to life, making them eligible for parole in the year 2058. Boudin hired Leonard Weinglass to defend her. Weinglass, a law partner of Boudin's father, arranged for a plea bargain and Boudin pled guilty to one count of felony murder and robbery, in exchange for one twenty-year to life sentence.


Boudin and Gilbert's son Chesa Boudin was adopted by former Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn

She is presently an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of Social Work, a controversial appointment.




she sure has some experiences to share

[Nebe]

I'm sure Jim was listening to some right wing conservative radio program or tv show where they were using this as some sort if propaganda and Jim popped a gasket. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'm sure Jim was listening to some right wing conservative radio program or tv show where they were using this as some sort if propaganda and Jim popped a gasket. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah, yes. You can't refute anything I said, so you hurl baseless insults. Kudos.

[Nebe]

LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

rimshot


I usually stay out of here but that just struck me funny even as heartbroken I am being upset about the bombing


It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university


ok, go back to insulting each other now

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time of transition in the hallowed ivory halls of academe as well as the rest of society. But especially in academe. The sixties counter-culture demanded rapid change in what they saw as a backward immoral society that was moving too slowly, if at all, (in their eyes) toward social, racial, and gender equality and away from what they saw as imperialistic war. America, for them, was stuck in a very bad place. And the youth learned from the sociology and liberal arts instructors that we were a bad, oppressive, nation whose history was steeped in blood, slavery, and societal oppression that cried for liberation. And, though they were given examples of and instruction on more egalitarian solutions based, yes, on Marxian forms of socialism, they were told that change, revolution, could only come from within. But the schools were still halfway mired in the 1950's post war leave-it-to-Beaver-father-knows-best culture. So, the more serious students found liberation in action and expanded the radical move outside of academe into the society at large.

The radicals were, secretly by many, and openly by some, admired in academe as the darlings of a new age. They were the products of their teaching and the hopeful agents of change. And the universities liberal arts and sociology faculties grew with them and more openly approved what their radical progeny had done (with the insincere remonstrance against some violent but mostly harmless escapades). And they later welcomed them back into the fold as professors who had walked the walk to teach new generations the way to world peace and equality. To true social justice.

And now, they no longer had to resort to violence though they could proudly remember the glorious days of active revolution--and even teach methods that could still work to further transform the world. They could be more measured now, not so desperate, nor have to resort to violence, since they were now mainstream, the politically correct and righteous teachers.

Reformed and "forgiven" (as well as admired), they could devote their lives to positive public service. The progressive transformation of the educational and political institutions, which they helped to achieve, was the new melting pot that they sought which could combine various ideological notions of social justice and could co-opt, if not eradicate, the oppressive capitalistic, imperialistic mechanisms of the American past. And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time ......................... And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

there's your answer Jim...........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

there's your answer Jim...........

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor. I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus. You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your question should be ......is anyone on the extreme right with a violent history teaching at, guest lecturing or giving commencement speeches at American Universities?

I can't think of any examples and I'm pretty sure that any self-respecting liberal universiy would never allow it....

can you give an example?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, if you're talking about people who bomb abortion clinics, etc...

But in the liberal ranks, even your everyday, garden-variety devotees are required to surrender rational thought.

Spence claimed that Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service. He's talking about an admitted, known terrorist. How can anyone possibly believe that?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree, if you're talking about people who bomb abortion clinics, etc...

But in the liberal ranks, even your everyday, garden-variety devotees are required to surrender rational thought.

Spence claimed that Bill Ayers has dedicated his life to positive public service. He's talking about an admitted, known terrorist. How can anyone possibly believe that?

Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11. Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
You view a liberal as someone with a mental disorder because your mind does not work like theirs and you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do because your mind thinks a different way. It's a left brain vs right brain debate.
I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other.. I'm just using my ability to think the way a liberal thinks to explain to you why you think it's a mental disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11. Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.
Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military.
You view a liberal as someone with a mental disorder because your mind does not work like theirs and you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do because your mind thinks a different way. It's a left brain vs right brain debate.
I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other.. I'm just using my ability to think the way a liberal thinks to explain to you why you think it's a mental disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Osama bin laden did a lot for the people of Afghanistan as well before 9/11."

I agree. And Hitler did a lot of good for Germany before he went a little funny in the head. But you and I both see that while those guys did dome good, they also did a lot of evil.

That's not what Spence said. He said that Ayers dedicated his life to positive public public service. He didn't say that Ayers did some good things, in adition to being a homicidal maniac.

'Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements"

In my opinion, not when it doesn't suit their ideology, they can't.

Case in point...Paul Ryan comes up with a plan to change Medicare. Not because he hates sick people, not because he wants all poor people to die, but because he concedes the irrefutable fact that Medicare is going broke.

Nebe, do you remember the liberal reaction to that? They crucified Ryan, made a commercial showing him pushing a wheelchair-bould lady off a cliff, claimed that he (and conservatives in general) didn't care about old people.

So I'm sorry, when it comes to large scale big issues, I don't see huge numbers of liberals seeing the big picture. What I see is liberals who instead of debating the merits of most issues, they go on the attack (if you are against abortion, liberals say you are waging war on women; if you are concede that Medicare is going broke, liberals say you hate sick people; if you are in favor of enforcing duly constituted immigration laws, liberals say you are anti-Mexican; if you are opposed to affirmative action, liberals say you are a racist; if you think there are limits to how much our government can spend, liberals say you don't care about poor people).

I'm not incorrect in that observation, nebe.

'Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds"

That is a ridiclulous stereotype, perpetuated by liberals who like to think of themselves as enlightened.

Most liberals are "very educated"? Take a stroll through Hartford CT or the streets of LA. There's not a lot of MENSA meetings happening in the poor urban areas, and those areas contain tons of liberals.

It's true that most highly educated, creative people are liberal. That does not mean that most liberals are highly educated and creative. Those are 2 very different hitngs.

"you can't rationalize how someone can think like they do"

That's true. I cannot fathom how Columbia University can make a professor out of someone who tried to incinerate their students. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that a murderer has more of a right to live than an unborn baby. I cannot fathom how liberals can conclude that Paul Ryan has no concern for poor people, simply because he thyinks Medicare needs to be changed.

You're correct, I cannot rationalize those things. And apparently you can't either, because saying that liberals are educated and creative, doesn't even come close to rationalizing these things.

I have a masters degree, and I spend a lot of free time composing music. Therefore, I am highly edicated and creative. Those attributes don't do anything to help me comprehend how millions of liberals people refuse to concede that Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke, unless we do somehting drastic.

" I am in no way saying one way of thinking is better than the other"

When you say that liberals are educated and creative, and conservatives like to be told what to do by someone else...well, it sure sounds like you are saying one is better than the other.

I do not believe that you are as insulting of those with whom you disagree, as I am. I need to work on that. And i mean that.

But Nebe, come on...Columbia hires a woman who tried to murder students there? You have to admit, that's pretty weird...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process,.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So liberals are more open-minded? Are you saying that liberals are more tolerant of dissenting opinions that conservatives?

Lots of empirical evidence would refute that.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Stand By.....

[Nebe]

Hey. He asked. Maybe my mental disorder got me in trouble??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Here's a neat article stating why people on the far right come off as nut jobs.
Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity? | Psychology Today

Far left.. Far right. You got a screw loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Far left.. Far right. You got a screw loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are kooks on both sides, agreed...but ket's look at what the mainstream believes on both sides...

Mainstream left = abortion for everyone who wants one, open borders, unlimited debt, leave social security and Medicare alone, no limits to borrowing and spending, discriminating against some people is OK (affirmative action), help poor people by making them addicted to welfare, give labor unions whatever they ask for

mainstream right = belief that all life is precious, believe the best defense against evil is an awesome offense capability, doing the most you can for the poor without spending yourself into oblivion, belief in the preciousness of individual liberty, belief that actions have consequences, belief in the free market

[Nebe]

I think you are confusing liberals with extreme leftist liberals. Not all liberals are nut jobs just as not all conservatives are nut jobs. As I said. Any extreme side has their nut jobs. Why Columbia hired her can only be answered by the people who hired her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device