U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,032 posts, read 3,775,518 times
Reputation: 1478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
so why are you expending so much effort to justify ayers' despicable activities?
Your analogy is bogus. A bomber of abortion clinics is attacking a lawful, moral, and socially desirable institution. A bomber of military recruitment offices in the Vietnam era would have been attacking an immoral and socially undesirable institution (not the military itself, but the instantiation of it during an immoral war). The former is a criminal and a terrorist. The latter is trying to bring about justice and sanity.

You can argue with his choice of tactics. But his goal was honorable. And I think that 40 years from now, I will feel exactly like Ayers: that I hadn't done enough to stop the Iraq Occupation.

And I'm really not expending that much effort, compared to the energy the anti-Obama crew put into destroying Ayers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:29 PM
 
3,033 posts, read 6,149,497 times
Reputation: 780
Once again, help me understand. How does bombing anything--which leads to destruction of property not the bomber's own at the best and murder at the worst, justify the reason for which the bombing was done? When does violence EVER justify anything--even if in the offender's warped mind, it is answering another form of violence? Didn't Ayers' mother ever teach him that two wrongs don't make a right?

And please just answer the question posed. Answering with how politiicans performed mass murder through illegal occupation of foreign countries, etc., etc. is fodder for another thread perhaps but doesn't begin to answer the simple question I posed, which is, how does bombing, destroying or potential murdering anyone/anything justify the " wrong"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,032 posts, read 3,775,518 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by findingmesomeday View Post
Once again, help me understand. How does bombing anything--which leads to destruction of property not the bomber's own at the best and murder at the worst, justify the reason for which the bombing was done? When does violence EVER justify anything--even if in the offender's warped mind, it is answering another form of violence? Didn't Ayers' mother ever teach him that two wrongs don't make a right?
We are a nation founded in defiance against unjust authority. And many of our most important historical events involved civil as well as violent disobedience to bring about the changes needed to implement the values we've always promoted but haven't always practiced. Sure, it's not the preferred path. The best course would be that everyone would recognize the right path forward. Unfortunately, due to greed, intolerance, bigotry, and conservatism, there are a lot of people who resist change, even when it is needed (as it is today with the gay marriage issue).

For example, in the election of 2000, we saw the GOP staging riots to prevent votes being counted. They, along with the lawsuits filed by the GOP's legal team, prevented the fair and just resolution of the election. And the last 8 years of disasterous policies is the result. Perhaps a little rioting by the side that was right could have prevented Iraq, Katrina, the Wall Street collapse, the coming recession, and the dozens of other failures that would be major news if they weren't drowned out by the massive flood of Bush Administration incompetence.

I am not a "law and order at all cost" type of person. I think America could use some fired up opposition willing to do more than write the occasional politely worded letter to the editor. Obsequious servitude has never been an American value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 02:56 PM
 
3,033 posts, read 6,149,497 times
Reputation: 780
Sorry, but I can't buy into the "collateral damage" theory that you put forth. And I've re-read the Constitution. Where does it say we aer a "nation founded in defiance against unjust authority"?

Do you realize that what you are saying here is basically "war is hell, it kills innocent people and it is wrong, so we're going to manufacture our own brand of home grown violence and kill innocent people to show everyone that it is wrong"

That kind of circular logic would have had me thrown out of business school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 03:14 PM
 
13,659 posts, read 8,128,064 times
Reputation: 5245
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
Your analogy is bogus. A bomber of abortion clinics is attacking a lawful, moral, and socially desirable institution.
that description also fits the pentagon, the NYPD, and the US capitol building. and killing babies is probably not the first thing that jumps into most people's heads when the terms 'moral' or 'socially desirable' are mentioned.

all bombed by billy ayers.

Quote:
A bomber of military recruitment offices in the Vietnam era would have been attacking an immoral and socially undesirable institution (not the military itself, but the instantiation of it during an immoral war).
ludicrous.

Quote:
The former is a criminal and a terrorist. The latter is trying to bring about justice and sanity.
both are criminals and terrorists. i'm sure both also felt they were trying to bring about 'justice' and 'sanity.' that you can't admit this speaks volumes.

Quote:
You can argue with his choice of tactics. But his goal was honorable.
terrorism is honorable? i did not know this.

Quote:
And I think that 40 years from now, I will feel exactly like Ayers: that I hadn't done enough to stop the Iraq Occupation.
have you considered bombing the pentagon? setting off a powerful nail bomb at a dance for noncommissioned officers? i surely hope not.

Quote:
And I'm really not expending that much effort, compared to the energy the anti-Obama crew put into destroying Ayers.
you started the topic. you're proudly buying his book. hell, you're practically trying to sell his book. that's far more than i've seen the anti-terrorist contingent do on this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,032 posts, read 3,775,518 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by findingmesomeday View Post
Sorry, but I can't buy into the "collateral damage" theory that you put forth. And I've re-read the Constitution. Where does it say we aer a "nation founded in defiance against unjust authority"?

Do you realize that what you are saying here is basically "war is hell, it kills innocent people and it is wrong, so we're going to manufacture our own brand of home grown violence and kill innocent people to show everyone that it is wrong"

That kind of circular logic would have had me thrown out of business school.
I'm sure it would. I'd flunk you for it.

I didn't say anything about war in general - just unjust, illegal, immoral military actions. And Ayers didn't kill anybody or plan to kill anybody. He committed violent acts against property. And if you're going to argue that we didn't start a violent war to gain our independence because you can't find it in the Constitution, then you deserve an F.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 03:29 PM
 
3,033 posts, read 6,149,497 times
Reputation: 780
We're obviously reading different documents. Even the Preamble cites "domestic tranquility".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Idaho Falls
5,032 posts, read 3,775,518 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by findingmesomeday View Post
We're obviously reading different documents. Even the Preamble cites "domestic tranquility".
I'm not sure what your point is. I said that sometimes civil disobediance including violence has been needed to achieve our goals. If conservatives had their way, the lower classes and those out of power would stay peaceful and obedient at all times. So it's in a conservative's interest to condemn any form of disobedience. I don't trust our rulers that much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 07:09 PM
 
1,914 posts, read 2,106,497 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
Provide one shred of evidence to back up your claim that he intended to kill anybody.
Oh no, YOU should prove that he didn't. I wasn't the one making bombs to prove MY point. What was his "get off easy" scheme? "My intention was not to kill anyone by setting off a a contraption that was lethal in nature (or would really hurt/maim someone should anyone be within 20 feet of said contraption when it exploded) just to create a little chaos?

But wait, apparently setting off bombs are ok as long as they destroy privately or publicaly owned "things"? I don't think so. The man is a NUT JOB.

There are hundreds of differernt ways to get a POINT across. Most normal people don't go undergound or build bombs to do so. The man is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But please, buy his book! Feed into his psychosis and celebrity by Obama.

It's "Build a Bear" not "Build a Bomb" in every mall in America. Unless you think it should be different. Bombs are ok as long as they aren't INTENTIONALLY made or SET OFF to kill anyone?

OMG!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 07:14 PM
 
1,914 posts, read 2,106,497 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie View Post
I'm sure it would. I'd flunk you for it.

I didn't say anything about war in general - just unjust, illegal, immoral military actions. And Ayers didn't kill anybody or plan to kill anybody. He committed violent acts against property. And if you're going to argue that we didn't start a violent war to gain our independence because you can't find it in the Constitution, then you deserve an F.
What unjust, illegal, immoral military actions would those be?

By the way...the early American settlers were doing just fine until England didn't like it. The early Americans didn't start the fire. You need to pick up a book entitled "American History" and read it. Before you read Ayers book.

Violence against property...hmmm...how does that affect EVERYONE? Think for a second before you answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top