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.

This is about the techniques people use to critique Ayers. Granted, I did my undergrad at an incredibly Liberal college, but I find it hard to believe that anyone even remotely reflective can consider feminism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, or social justice as being intrinsically extremist policies.

It requires the mindset that the first half of the 20th Century was the pinnacle of appropriate social development, and anything past that is wrong/unnecessary/scary change that reduces the exaggerated impact of white male opinion on world affairs.

Was this the first half of the twentieth century where racism, eugenics, anti-semitism and business empire-building were generally acceptable? Compared to that, anything that was meant to help the common people and unite the disparate communities that made up the USA would seem radical. We're gradually returning to those times, slowly but surely.

He was a terrorist. He should have been exterminated as the vermin he is.

Despite the fact that he never killed anyone, and the fact that the state couldn't find untainted evidence? I agree that his actions were reprehensible, but the rule of law must stand; chaos and vigilantism is the alternative... and while the Wild West might play well in Texas, it's less welcome in the rest of the country.

He was a gounder of the Weathermen. The Weathermen were domestic terrorists. Again, death to terrorists and their supporters.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground/today.html

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground/movement.html

If you are a person directing bombings with the intent of the dsetruction of the US capital you are a terrorist. If not terrorism then good old fashioned treason works. Stringing up is too good. The English concept of quertering works in this instance.

Whatever issues he supported he's a terrorist. If he were a right winger he would still be a terrorist. If he protested peacefully he would not be a terrorist.

Death to supporters of terrorists? OK, well, it's too late for Reagan, but Ollie North is still around; so, I'll bet, are a good number of the people who were behind the support of Iraq versus Iran (since, of course, it's enough of a terrorist country that we had to invade it!) and the support of the Afghanis against the Russians (creating the terroristic Taliban, don'tchaknow).

I'm sure we can have a fine old time stringing all the terrorist supporters up all around the nation's capital... or we could forego that, and actually remain a nation of laws and not one of kangaroo-courts and "just-because" murder.

Sure, put them all away, or execute them if the crime calls for it... but only if you can prove it in a court of law. Otherwise, you might as well be one of Saddam's thugs. (The pronoun "you", in this case, is intended neutrally, and is not directed toward any particular person.)

lord_sutekh wrote: Otherwise, you might as well be one of Saddam's thugs.

Oh I am sure Hussein has plenty already I saw a few at Starbucks today.

Seriously, if you are a terrorist and hate America, just gtfo already. (The pronoun "you", in this case, is intended neutrally, and is not directed toward any particular person.)

Weeeeee

lord_sutekh wrote:Despite the fact that he never killed anyone, and the fact that the state couldn't find untainted evidence? I agree that his actions were reprehensible, but the rule of law must stand; chaos and vigilantism is the alternative... and while the Wild West might play well in Texas, it's less welcome in the rest of the country.

If I remember correctly three folks were killed in the bombing of the police hq in New York and a handful of folks were injured in the Pentagon attack. You may think it is wrong to want to string the bastard up but in a time of war domestic terrorism is a crime punishable by death.

It's got nothing to do with old fashioned Texas justice. It has everything to with the fact the man and his wife are admitted radical terrorist who, and I quote, felt they "should have done more". During the time the Weather Underground was active, the members actually believed they were a defacto rebel army who would undermine the US government in support of the Communist N. Vietnamese in what they viewed as an unjust war (that was a really long sentence).

Anyhow, he said these things as recently as 2001 and 2003, in a radio interview. You may not believe in the death penalty but anyone, regardless of affiliation, who acts in a terroristic manner towards their country should at the very minimum be stripped of their citizenship and deported to the nearest country willing to take them never to return.

His investigation and court time was enough for him to go on the run with his wife for nearly a decade. Because the police and Feds botched the collection of evidence against him (spoke to the wife about that and she says sloppy police work gets more guilty pukes off than she likes to think about) he eventually was "cleared" in court. It just means the Law couldn't prove the case it doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't guilty. But he was scared enough of what the Feds might of found to run none the less.

The fact that he admits he was a terrorist and is still an anarchist/marxist at heart basically gives the finger to the US government. He's a scumbag and no matter how reformed his liberal-minded educator buddies say he is it still boils down to this...you can gold plate a turd but it is still a turd!

AoS

Ace_of_Spades wrote:I quote, felt they "should have done more".

I think this is the kicker that makes me wonder what the "IT"S NOT AN ISSUE!" people have in their pipe. It's mildly tolerable if he was a repentant domestic terrorist in views and theory alone, but he was a practicing one that is not only unrepentant but wishes he would have killed more US citizens and destroyed more US property.

And he is good buddies with Hussein. Its not an issue and shows nothing about B.O.s character...right.

He's also an anarchist and marxist and that alone does it for me and a lot of voters. Presidents shouldn't be talking to these sorts of people.

Thanks for the link, dogma. I agree that it is a perfect example of everything wrong with the Ayers case. The article is built around the central premise that Obama might pick Ayers for secretary of education. It's an utterly stupid idea, given the passing contact the two men have had, the notoriety of Ayers and Obama's own political views.

But of course, this is political punditry and reality has nothing to do with it. Instead, punditry needs to ramp up the rhetoric as high as possible, drown out the facts with as many buzzwords as possbible.

Ultimately, there needs to be a bogeyman to justify voting against Obama and for McCain. This is pretty crappy as far as scare campaigns go, but it's what they've got, and while it isn't making a dent on Obama's lead it seems enough to keep the faithful like PanamaG all excited.

PanamaG wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote: Otherwise, you might as well be one of Saddam's thugs.

Oh I am sure Hussein has plenty already I saw a few at Starbucks today.

Seriously, if you are a terrorist and hate America, just gtfo already. (The pronoun "you", in this case, is intended neutrally, and is not directed toward any particular person.)

I thought Joe McCarthy was already dead.

Edited for antagonism

PanamaG wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
I think this is the kicker that makes me wonder what the "IT"S NOT AN ISSUE!" people have in their pipe. It's mildly tolerable if he was a repentant domestic terrorist in views and theory alone, but he was a practicing one that is not only unrepentant but wishes he would have killed more US citizens and destroyed more US property.

And he is good buddies with Hussein. Its not an issue and shows nothing about B.O.s character...right.
.

Possibly. after all no one else in the US government is right ?

Now of course, I'm syre no one is suggesting that a casual acquaintance with someone of very distasteful views makes a person unsuitable for... on hang on, no , this entire "argument" is based on him being buddies with Ayers, when this isn't actually true. Still why let facts get in the way of your scaremongering.

To paraphrase if you want to live in a banana republic that bad why don't you go move to one.

reds8n wrote:Possibly. after all no one else in the US government is right ?

Now of course, I'm syre no one is suggesting that a casual acquaintance with someone of very distasteful views makes a person unsuitable for... on hang on, no , this entire "argument" is based on him being buddies with Ayers, when this isn't actually true. Still why let facts get in the way of your scaremongering.

To paraphrase if you want to live in a banana republic that bad why don't you go move to one.

I think he meant Hussein as in Barack Hussein Obama, and was pointing out Ayers is bestest buddy in the whole wide world with Obama, because they were on a commitee together once.

I'm not sure why PanamaG is using Obama's middle name. It does sound awfully foreign and terroristy, but surely that isn't it.

A blind idealogue, using something hot-buttony to justify their irrational hate? Never!

By the way, PanamaG, Mannahin asked you for your actual reasoning as to why you're drinking so much of the Haterade on Obama, and you never answered... so, you might get better results if you wiped off the foam and explained yourself.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
The fact that he admits he was a terrorist and is still an anarchist/marxist at heart basically gives the finger to the US government. He's a scumbag and no matter how reformed his liberal-minded educator buddies say he is it still boils down to this...you can gold plate a turd but it is still a turd!

AoS

He admits he was guilty. That isn't the question. The question is whether or not the ideological project he supports has any merit. As the subject heading says: this is not about Ayers himself.

dogma wrote:This is about the techniques people use to critique Ayers. Granted, I did my undergrad at an incredibly Liberal college, but I find it hard to believe that anyone even remotely reflective can consider feminism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, or social justice as being intrinsically extremist policies.

An idea alone doesn't make an extremist. It's the actions that they take to further those ideas. IE. Setting bombs, spiking trees, arson, vandalism, assualts, etc...

People who will attack others to further their agenda is what creates extremism, not the actual idea itself.

Why are we talking about Ayers again?

dogma wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
The fact that he admits he was a terrorist and is still an anarchist/marxist at heart basically gives the finger to the US government. He's a scumbag and no matter how reformed his liberal-minded educator buddies say he is it still boils down to this...you can gold plate a turd but it is still a turd!

AoS

He admits he was guilty. That isn't the question. The question is whether or not the ideological project he supports has any merit. As the subject heading says: this is not about Ayers himself.

Dogma: The ideological mindset/techniques that he uses and supports are extreme. The man is extreme it's been his lifesblood and calling since he was in his early 20s. In that way you cannot seperate the man from his ideas. He has a very radical agenda in what he wants to teach that I personally find disturbing. "Revolution in Education"....it has no business in the education system.

If you haven't figured it out I do lean conservative...it comes with the territory. But I like to believe that I have an open mind. But when it comes to Ayers I cannot see how educators can hold him up as some sort of "shining light on the hill" leading the way for education reform.

He is a radical his views are radical the people that he likes to surround himself are radicals (Hugo Chavez comes to mind) he has/had influence on Mr. Obama and I personally don't agree with his views.

Do I agree that we as a nation should do more to teach/educate our children and young people yes I do (Nevada ranks 49th out of 50.) I come from a long line of military and teachers/professors. Teaching is usually what my family does after they get out of the military. There will be some on this board that take that as my family takes their "conservative military" views and "INDOCTRINATES" the children. So be it but it's just like I see Ayers doing in his teaching methods.

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.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Dogma: The ideological mindset/techniques that he uses and supports are extreme. The man is extreme it's been his lifesblood and calling since he was in his early 20s. In that way you cannot seperate the man from his ideas. He has a very radical agenda in what he wants to teach that I personally find disturbing. "Revolution in Education"....it has no business in the education system.

The ideological mindset which he espouses is that of the Socratic method. Also know as the ubiquitous question. That is the ultimate foundation of things like 'Queer Theory', 'Social Justice', and 'Multiculturalism'. His revolution in education isn't about indoctrination. Its about giving people the tools to shield themselves from indoctrination.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
If you haven't figured it out I do lean conservative...it comes with the territory. But I like to believe that I have an open mind. But when it comes to Ayers I cannot see how educators can hold him up as some sort of "shining light on the hill" leading the way for education reform.

Mostly its because he represents the ultimate product of the project begun by the Frankfurt School in the 60's. That is, Ayers is a man who was deeply indoctrinated, realized the error of his ways, and moved towards compromise.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
He is a radical his views are radical the people that he likes to surround himself are radicals (Hugo Chavez comes to mind) he has/had influence on Mr. Obama and I personally don't agree with his views.

He was a radical, and the people he surrounded himself were radicals. The people he surrounds himself with now are a veritable who's who of the educational establishment. Remember, radicalism can only be considered such when set against a general baseline of reality. Right now that baseline is reflected in the project Ayers is pushing.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Do I agree that we as a nation should do more to teach/educate our children and young people yes I do (Nevada ranks 49th out of 50.) I come from a long line of military and teachers/professors. Teaching is usually what my family does after they get out of the military. There will be some on this board that take that as my family takes their "conservative military" views and "INDOCTRINATES" the children. So be it but it's just like I see Ayers doing in his teaching methods.

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.

In early America black people were generally regarded as sub-human. Is America forever tainted? More importantly, is anything ever really pure?

dogma wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Dogma: The ideological mindset/techniques that he uses and supports are extreme. The man is extreme it's been his lifesblood and calling since he was in his early 20s. In that way you cannot seperate the man from his ideas. He has a very radical agenda in what he wants to teach that I personally find disturbing. "Revolution in Education"....it has no business in the education system.

The ideological mindset which he espouses is that of the Socratic method. Also know as the ubiquitous question. That is the ultimate foundation of things like 'Queer Theory', 'Social Justice', and 'Multiculturalism'. His revolution in education isn't about indoctrination. Its about giving people the tools to shield themselves from indoctrination.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
If you haven't figured it out I do lean conservative...it comes with the territory. But I like to believe that I have an open mind. But when it comes to Ayers I cannot see how educators can hold him up as some sort of "shining light on the hill" leading the way for education reform.

Mostly its because he represents the ultimate product of the project begun by the Frankfurt School in the 60's. That is, Ayers is a man who was deeply indoctrinated, realized the error of his ways, and moved towards compromise.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
He is a radical his views are radical the people that he likes to surround himself are radicals (Hugo Chavez comes to mind) he has/had influence on Mr. Obama and I personally don't agree with his views.

He was a radical, and the people he surrounded himself were radicals. The people he surrounds himself with now are a veritable who's who of the educational establishment. Remember, radicalism can only be considered such when set against a general baseline of reality. Right now that baseline is reflected in the project Ayers is pushing.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:
Do I agree that we as a nation should do more to teach/educate our children and young people yes I do (Nevada ranks 49th out of 50.) I come from a long line of military and teachers/professors. Teaching is usually what my family does after they get out of the military. There will be some on this board that take that as my family takes their "conservative military" views and "INDOCTRINATES" the children. So be it but it's just like I see Ayers doing in his teaching methods.

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.

In early America black people were generally regarded as sub-human. Is America forever tainted? More importantly, is anything ever really pure?

It wouldn't matter if he surrounded himself with Mother Theresa and the 5 Saint Brigade. He STILL advocates what he did, and what Weather Underground stood for, even goes as far as to lament that he didn't do enough. That does not make him repentant, and still makes him a radical.

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.

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.

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.

djones520 wrote:
It wouldn't matter if he surrounded himself with Mother Theresa and the 5 Saint Brigade. He STILL advocates what he did, and what Weather Underground stood for, even goes as far as to lament that he didn't do enough. That does not make him repentant, and still makes him a radical.

It sure does, but it doesn't make his ideology radical. See past Ayers. Look at what he is really talking about.

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.

Yea, both parties have kooks. What of it? The question isn't about which party is better, but about which party's ideology creates a better future, regardless of motivation.

dogma wrote:

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.

Yea, both parties have kooks. What of it? The question isn't about which party is better, but about which party's ideology creates a better future, regardless of motivation.

No no no, you are missing his point. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves therefore we should give the midline of the United States back to France.

Sometimes I think that might not be a bad idea...