Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

edit to reduce waste of space and I cant spell

djones520 wrote:
History lesson. The KKK was founded by Democrats, and has recently had a Democratic Congressman who served as a Grand Wizard. The greatest trick the Democratic Party ever played was to get people to believe that they where the one who stood for minority rights.

On Edit: I'm not even going to go into this further, so if you want to know the truth about the situation, google it yourself. Not gonna spend hours arguing with people who ignore a long documented history of Democrats doing everything they can to suppress African Americans rights.

Interesting...

So in response to your red herring. That's no longer true, and hasn't been in my lifetime. They weren't, you're right, until about the mid 1960s. Google it yourself.

In my lifetime, and I suspect for much if not all of yours, the Republicans have been playing with the racists. The best sign of this was when such wonderful human beings as Strom Thurmond switched alliegence in the 1960s.

Parties change over time. So do some people. Some don't.

efarrer wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote:But personally I thnk his actions in the past have forever tainited anything that he has touched or will touch in the future. That includes Obama.

Wow are you guys partisan.

Does it work both ways for you?

The people on the right who have supported terrorists, do they merit this same loathing?

Or do the followers of KKK, as well as thier children and associates, occupy a special status? I'm willing to bet McCain and the republicans know a damn few more of those terrorists then Obama does, and they've killed a great many more.

Partisan...You bet I choose a side...Independent Conservative. I look at the person and if that person doesn't pass the litmus test of my belief/value system then they don't get a pass. I find the actions and activities of Ayers disgusting.

I don't agree with the mainline Democratic Party Ideals nor do I totally agree with all the Republican Ideals but I can relate to and find more comfort for me and my own within the Republican Party. Are there idiots and people I dislike in both parties, yes there are but I find less folks within the Democratic party that share my personal worldview.

If you mean McCain and the Republicans (and alot of Democrats too) know more terrorists it's probably because we've been fighting and killing quite a few of them for the last few years.

Ayers actions don't transfer on to his children...neither do the actions of KKK members and their ilk onto their children...but the persons who commit those actions should be held accountable.

I have a weird world view anyhow...raised through the prism of the military lifestyle my whole life and then have my mother's Japanese-Okinawan beliefs thrown in...it tends to make things very black and white with very little grey area in the middle.

I believe this one is going to be chalked up to agree to disagree and we'll call it at that.

AoS

"Duty heavy as a Mountain...Death light as a Feather"...this is how I live my life.

First off, parties didn't have the strong ideological connections they have now 40 years ago. The Civil Rights acts was opposed mostly by southerners of both parties, and enjoyed broad bi-partisan support in general. It wasn't much of a partisan issue. Democrats in the deep south were virtually the only party in the deep south for a century simply due to the GOPs aboltionist stand during the Civil War. When the Democrats became more liberal in the 60's and on, Nixon created the southern strategy to tap into the deep disaffection Southern Democrats felt. Reagan gets the credit for it, but Nixon actually pulled it off.

To paint the modern GOP as racists, or even play up some tenuous relations with Racism is misleading. The GOP cares mostly about it's holy trinity of issues: low taxes/spending, funding and using a big military to kick ass, and a Conservative social agenda. Now, it is important to note that while all three have valid (if arguable) policy supports, all three tap into various middle American angsts. Social programs are the reason for high taxes, foreigners/communists/Islamic extremists are a threat to us, and abortionists/homosexuals/feminists are going to take over the country. I would hesitate to call any of this politics of hate, but I think it would be naive to assume that the GOP does not benefit from some angry Americans that have some issues with people not like themselves.

Second, Ayers is a pretty polarizing figure. It's hard to really be comfortable with what he did, and to think that he's a factor in American life today can be troubling. One the other hand, let's keep in mind a few points that frequently are overlooked:
1) without a criminal conviction, it's hard to justify completely shutting a person out of American life. It's not like the states or feds didn't want to get him, but he came through clean as a whistle.
2) Even among terrorists, there has to be a hierarchy of evil. Ayers' targets not only didn't try to hurt people, but didn't cause any injuries, aside from three deaths of collaborators building a bomb.
3) The statement "we should have done more" refers to activism, not to the bombings.
4) I don't like to dabble in moral relativism, but it's overly simplistic to not look at actions in the time and place they occurred. The sterile lens of history paints him as a terrorist, even a traitor. The circumstances of the time saw conscription of youth to fight (and die) in a war many opposed, saw police attack and beat peaceful protestors, saw rampant political assasination, all in an time of a huge influx of drugs (not all illegal at the time) with ill known effects. I'm not excusing the man, as bombing a government building is simply wrong, but it is useful to see what a person saw, and try to see how they made the decision they made.
Ayers made a bold, and in my opinion poor, decision to try to fight fire with fire. History cannot fully pardon him, but to think that the man cannot give us something of value is short sighted.

5) While Ayers is an important thinker and writer on education, most of the themes and approaches he advocates have other champions as well. It's not like he's the only one talking about these things.
6) Has there been any serious talk of Obama making him Secretary of Education? I mean, there is no way the Senate approves him, right?

Finally, I really have to question the sort of zero-tolerance attitudes expressed here. The idea that Obama has worked with a man does not mean he is guilty of everything the other did. Every group has demons, and I can't think of anybody that would want to be judged by the sins of the guiltiest member of the group they are in. It's not like conservatives need to look for reasons to dislike Obama, there's no reason to engage in the sort of vigilantism that only reinforces the notion that the GOP thrives on macho cowboy-ism.

AoS: I'm curious. How do you feel, as a military man of Okinawan descent, about the current state of military discipline?

dogma wrote:AoS: I'm curious. How do you feel, as a military man of Okinawan descent, about the current state of military discipline?

It all boils down to where you are stationed and what branch of the service you are in. I can speak from an Air Force and Army POV. In my 19 years I have seen a shift in how things are looked at. The things I did as a young airman would get you in trouble now days right away. But not because of what you did but because of the potential PR problems that it causes/caused. The military as a whole is very aware (hyper-aware) of the views/opinions of the civilian establishment. Without fail the military member is held to a higher (sometimes unattainable) standard than our civilian counterpart(s).

The military is also a snapshot of folks from every walk of life. I have worked for a man (who happens to be my Dad's best friend) who grew up in the DC ghetto and came up hard. He made something of himself; excelled in his career and was highly sought after when he retired. He became one of the senior VPs at a major software firm.

I've also had guys who worked with/for me who came from the most advantaged life (silver spoon in the rear from birth) who were spolied rotten with no sense of service or willingness to sacrifice their own personal self to complete the mission. They cut corners and got themselves and other people in trouble. In the end I had to make sure they received punishment and in some cases confinement and bad conduct discharge from the service.

The level of drug use has gone down....alcohol related incidents have decreased....violence has decreased...so the discipline problems we do run in to are more admimistrative...failure to meet a mandatory formation; falsification of official documentation; absent without leave and conduct unbecoming to name a few.

Whenever anything major happens (murder, drugs on a large scale things like this) it gets out into the MSM really riki tik and gets plastered everywhere.

The really hard part with being in the service today is that alot of the younger members view it as a "job" when it really is a "JOB = lifestyle". It's not a 9-5 thing it is an all encompassing way of life. You sacrifice your personal freedoms in order to uphold everyone else's freedoms. I used to have a sign behind my desk (at eye level) that read "We are here to uphold Democracy not practice Democracy." Some folks get it and some folks don't.

Usually the problems we see are with the younger generation...they are taught in basic/boot that discipline both personal and within the regulations is a very real thing. Without discipline in the unit the whole machine eventually breaks down (ie: the nuclear incident at Minot AFB). The "me" generation has grown up putting themselves first (not all mind you) and you see it in alot of the little things that happen everyday. Lack of customs and courtesies; poor customer relations; lack of interpersonal skills...it happens across the board.

The worst thing I've had happen to me lately involved one of my NCOs in Iraq. He decided that since he was due to rotate home in a week or so he could stay in his hooch and not show up for work. Show time was 0700 so I sent a runner every 15 minutes until 0945 (losing both an NCO and a member of one of my teams to look for this turd). My airman found him on his way back from the bathroom without his uniform on. He told him "LT wants you ASAP." The response from my NCO..."Who gives a what the LT wants I'll get there when I get there"

So he rolled into work at 1045 an hour after he was found and over 3 hours after he was expected to show up for work (the walk from his hooch to work was 10 minutes). Meanwhile I've got 3 crews out working across the base; I've been out of pocket working outside on the base and we've had three attacks on us that morning. One almost causing injury to one of my crews (dud rockets thankfully).

When he arrived he couldn't understand why I was so pissed off at him. He failed to report to my office...failed to wait for me to return from the jobsite...forgot proper customs and courtesies once he did arrive...and then gave me this line of BS, "I'm leaving soon LT and I wanted a break. Besides you aren't my boss back in the world and you are a prior NCO so you should understand."

Needless to say my response was less than polite (the First Sgt had to step in between us)...Conduct unbecoming of an NCO; AWOL; Failure to go and deriliction of duty....all punishable by a loss of ranks and forfiture of pay...I threw the book at him for his lack of discipline and what it did to my troops working for me and with him. He was a leader (albeit a really crappy one) and his actions caused problems for the remainder of my tour in Iraq. My Commander (discipline breaks dwon at all ranks btw) felt that it was to "high profile" and didn't want it to look bad for him (the Lt Colonel wanteed to make Colonel) in front of the General. So he let the guy get out of country with a slap on the wrist. I made sure that loser got what he deserved since I sent the information to his boss back at home station (my friend by the way). So he was right I wasn't his boss back home but his lack of "discipline" bit him in the butt anyway.

Most folks who join usually get out after their first tour or even their second. The ones who make it to 10 years are usually in for the 20 year stint. Every once in awhile you get the kid who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are in for life. That's how I was...couldn't see myself doing anything else and I still can't.

I think the majority of folks who are in the military get along with the rules and discipline just fine. But folks with little or no situational awareness (SA) tend to get into trouble because of bad decision making abilities. I think the military as a whole has less problems with discipline. You know from the start what is expected of you. But there are always going to be a few bad apples in every bunch.

AoS

Polonius has summed it up pretty well for me.

The Weather Underground had the wrong idea, but they never actually hurt anyone other than themselves. That makes for a qualitative difference between them and any of the modern types of terrorists.

If you actually read what Ayers has written and said, his wish to have "done more" meant in terms of his and our society in general's opposition to the Vietnam war. Which was a pretty monstrous, stupid, murderous thing.

The guy has gone on to have a productive life, be part of organizations and do work supported and praised both by liberals and conservatives, and be Chicago's 1997 citizen of the year.

This whole thing is ridiculously overblown.

Well now that we've cleared that up...

I just want to know... how do you Republican's explain John McCain's political beginning? He started it with Vietnamese soldiers who captured and tortured American soldiers! They are worse than terrorists!

(This is a joke don't F with me over it)