Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
What Ayers has to say has been written in books and can be found all over the Internet when you google Social Justice and Education. You want to know where his head is? Then just check out the Bonilla agenda in Venezuela and start looking for signs that it is creeping into our schools and then SNUFF it out.
I know one thing for sure - if I had kids of my own - I'd be home schooling their butts. They would not set ONE foot in a public school of indoctrination.
Indoctrination is the EXCLUSION of ideas that you disagree with.
I have googled all of those things and have not found anything disturbing. If you have any "facts" to share then you should do so, otherwise I have no reason to give your delusions any credibility. All I'm finding in your statements is an enormous fear of ideas that disagree with you own.
Were you home schooled? Is that how you arrived at the myopic opinions you are expressing here? My what a wonderful narrow-minded world we would have if you were in charge. Is this what we can hope for from the future generations of home schooled children, people full of fear and hatred toward anyone who holds opinions different from their own?
I find it amusing that both right-wing nuts and left-wind nuts claim that the public schools are "indoctrinating" their children with ideas that extremists on each side oppose. That indicates to me that the public schools must be doing a pretty good job of exposing the students to a balanced agenda of both conservative and liberal ideas. Thank God that most Americans are centrist rather then extremists.
I fully support the Social Justice Research Center and the University of Wyoming's efforts to expose students and the public to a wide range of viewpoints. It is an embarrassment to the State that UoW had to back down from the statement they made below.
Quote:
The University of Wyoming has not distanced itself from controversy in the past and has been fortunate to host a range of speakers from a variety of backgrounds. It is clear to us that a university's role is to teach, not to indoctrinate. Some have insisted that UW cancel Professor Ayers's visit. We expect a higher level of discourse from our students and from the American public. And we are confident that the best way for our students to develop the judgment and independence of thought to evaluate ideas critically is to be exposed to a wide range of viewpoints.
Yeah probably GEORGE SOROS another evil human being who needs to be removed from this earth.
The only truly evil people in this world are those who think they have the right to remove anyone from the earth who holds an opinions different from their own.
Much can be learned from BOOKS on the topic. There is no need to give a VOICE to people who seek to destroy our country. PERIOD. End of story. You want to listen to him ? Then YOU get on a plane and hear him in Chicago. The people of Wyoming can't be forced to roll out a welcome mat for a domestic terrorist who is really just Timothy McVeigh lite.
So if we disagree with someone's opinion, then their right to free speech should be limited to publishing those opinions in books? I assume this applies equally to all parties, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck?
No need to give them VOICE, right? If you want to hear them talk you can fly to wherever and listen to them.
There is a huge difference between rolling out a welcome mat and accommodating free speech.
No one forced the people of Wyoming to invite Bill Ayers to speak. But when he was INVITED, and that engagement is cancelled due to pressure from people who oppose his opinions, then it does become an infringement on the Right of Free Speech.
Bill Ayers is not only entitled to sue to protect those rights, but in my opinion he will ultimately win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthiness
The people of Wyoming can't be forced to roll out a welcome mat for a domestic terrorist who is really just Timothy McVeigh lite.
There are no valid comparisons between Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers.
McVeigh intentionally killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of six, when he blew up a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Building. "McVeigh claimed that the bombing was revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge"."
There is no evidence that Bill Ayers killed or injured anyone. All indications are that he and the Weatherman intentionally tried to avoid causing any human injury by targeting vacant public buildings and monuments.
Quote:
Bill Ayers rebuttal to the charge of terrorism:
The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices.... We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.
Bill Ayers motivation was not revenge:
Quote:
In a November 2008 interview with The New Yorker, Ayers said that he had not meant to imply that he wished he and the Weathermen had committed further acts of violence. Instead, he said, “I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more ****.” Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.” He also stated, "While we did claim several extreme acts, they were acts of extreme radicalism against property,” and “We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves.”[35]
The interviewer also quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.' "[29] "We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."[4]
In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official".
CaptnRn,
Just becaust Bill Ayers says so doesn't make it so. He set bombs up that killed two people. OJ Simpson also claims he did not kill anyone. OJ Simpson has more of a case since he was actually tried for the crimes he commited and was found not guilty. Bill Ayres had the charges against him dropped on a technicality.
While this might mean he doesnt go to jail, it doesnt make him a hero or a good man. I don't want my taxes going to pay his speakers fee or going to him in any way. The rational for inviting him as a speaker is, in my opinion weak. There are lots of honest good uncontravercial people who can speak about doing good in the world. Inviting Ayres is as disturbing as inviting Terry Nichols both are bomb makers.
Has the university invited Gen Patreus? Any one of the 2009 Nobel Prize winners? how about the 2008 winners? Olympic gold medalists? winners of the National Book Award?
In inviting Mr Ayres the University was not looking to inrich the students but to get attention and for the total waste of funds someone's head should roll. UW is not a privet university and, it runs on public funds and this is why it should not be contravercial.
To destinguish intent to kill from killing when the tool he chose is a bomb and the target he chose includes the pentagon seams to me to be somewhere between idiotic and moronic. So he is not a first degree murderer, only a second degree murderer - is that your point?
A bomb he prepared killed two people and that is the bottom line.
In Sheridan a few months ago 3 teens shot and killed an elderly man, I don't think they intended to kill him, they were just looking for stuff to steal from him so perhaps UW should invite them to talk to our young students as well.
Get your facts straight, there is no indication in the accounts that I have read that Ayers was ever around, prepared the bomb or had anything to do with the bomb that accidentally exploded killing two people, the "Greenwich Village townhouse explosion". Greenwich Village townhouse explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this country people are innocent until proven guilty.
4] Bill Ayres had the charges against him dropped on a technicality[/b]. While this might mean he doesnt go to jail, it doesnt make him a hero or a good man.
I have seen several people repeat that allegation on this forum. You seem to be suggesting that Ayers had murder charges against him. Do you have any credible sources for this contention? I have not been able to find any.
What I have found is this:
Quote:
Some media reports and political critics have suggested that Ayers, Dohrn or the Weathermen were connected to the fatal 1970 San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing but neither Ayers nor anyone else has been charged or convicted of this crime.
I find it interesting that even after mounting extensive illegal investigations into the Weatherman activities, including these below. That the FBI could not could not come up with sufficient evidence to charge any of the Weatherman with murder or man slaughter:
Quote:
FBI leaders "authorized FBI agents to break into homes secretly in 1972 and 1973, without a search warrant, on nine separate occasions. These kinds of FBI burglaries were known as "black bag jobs." The break-ins occurred at five addresses in New York and New Jersey, at the homes of relatives and acquaintances of Weather Underground members, and did not lead to the capture of any fugitives. "W. Mark Felt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In 1973, new information came to light about FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL. [20] Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers. [21]
The Weapons and bomb-related charges they did have were dropped! As best I can tell no charges of murder or man slaughter were ever brought against them.
Is that the "technicality" you referred to? That the conspiracy charges they had brought against the Weatherman were dropped for lack of evidence and because the illegal activities of the FBI were such a huge embarrassment to the country?
Quote:
In the Final Report of the Select Committee (Church Committee), COINTELPRO was castigated in no uncertain terms: Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence. COINTELPRO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is some technicality!
Quote:
Originally Posted by R82801
I don't want my taxes going to pay his speakers fee or going to him in any way. The rational for inviting him as a speaker is, in my opinion weak. There are lots of honest good uncontravercial people who can speak about doing good in the world. Inviting Ayres is as disturbing as inviting Terry Nichols both are bomb makers.
Has the university invited Gen Patreus? Any one of the 2009 Nobel Prize winners? how about the 2008 winners? Olympic gold medalists? winners of the National Book Award?
In inviting Mr Ayres the University was not looking to inrich the students but to get attention and for the total waste of funds someone's head should roll. UW is not a privet university and, it runs on public funds and this is why it should not be contravercial.
I assume you mean controversial. Why isn't a University the place where people can discuss and explore controversial ideas?
I see, it is OK for the University to invite people to speak as long as the opinions they express agree with your own and don't threaten your particular world view in any way. But they have no right to invite someone to speak who you disagree with. What about the tax payers rights who believe in free speech and want their children's education to include the ability to explore controversial ideas and to learn to think for themselves?
First- Free Speach:
No one is against free speach, there is a difference between arresting someone for saying something, and paying them to say things.
Second-sources:
Youre an [Mod Cut] for quoting Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything on there.
First- Free Speach:
No one is against free speach, there is a difference between arresting someone for saying something, and paying them to say things.
I'm sure the courts are going to disagree with you on this point, lets see how the lawsuit goes.
Quote:
Second-sources:
Youre an [Mod Cut] for quoting Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything on there.
Your own words say more about you then I ever could. The facts quoted from Wikipedia are well documented. So far you have produced NO substantiation of the numerous incorrect claims you have made.
Dealing with the cliam "Barack Obama had an acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers a former fomestic terrorist"
Status: Partly true.
The part that is partial about it is not anything to do with Ayers but with Barack Obama's relationship to him.
What is your point? This was never under discussion previously. And it has been broadly dismissed as nothing more then a lame attempt by the GOP to discredit Obama. No relationship between them has ever been demonstrated.
The Snopes site, which you apparantly did not bother to read, says that "The claims were inaccurate", that "Ayers and Obama never were particularly close" and that "they just happened to live in the same neighborhood".
Quote:
As a member of a terrorist organization that claimed responsiblity for bombings that killed people- Bill Ayres is responsible for their deaths.
Again you fail to get your basic facts correctly. The Weatherman never claimed responsibility for bombings that killed anyone. They claimed responsibility for blowing up public buildings and monuments to get publicity for their anti-vietnam war activities, but there is no proof anyone ever died from their activities.
Quote:
So is your point that he is not a killer only a terrorist?
[Mod Cut]
One of several points that I have made is that there is an enormous difference between terrorists who kill people and activists who do not.
Apparantly in your opinion Free Speech and Innocent Until Proven Guilty are just technicalities and should not preclude persecution of someone you don't like.
Last edited by ElkHunter; 04-23-2010 at 11:35 AM..
It’s hard to believe Bill Ayers is the worst influence students will be exposed to during their college careers. The furor that opponents have created has done more to advance Ayers’ stature and potential audience than anything coming from his supporters.
But maybe the most disappointing aspect of this whole controversy was the willingness of the university to cancel a planned event because of threats. Ayers and whether he speaks or not isn’t the issue for most of us. Bullies and those who use threats in an attempt to get their way should never be allowed to win.
Do we want Bill Ayers here? No, not really. But we would rather have had him speak than to have given in to those who believe threats or violence are legitimate political tools.
Those who have opposed Ayers speaking have converted him from a barely knows leftover of the 60's into a new highly publicized champion for free speech. Without all of this publicity few would have really cared much about what he had to say. Now the public and the press will be hanging on every word.
As a member of a terrorist organization that claimed responsiblity for bombings that killed people- Bill Ayres is responsible for their deaths.
Many make the same claim against Dick Cheney and GW.
I just read your Snopes.com site above...have YOU read it? It doesn't make your case very strongly.
"Reporters reviewing records in Chicago have found so far nothing startling in documents linking Sen. Barack Obama to 1960's radical William Ayers."
It goes on to tell exactly how the two were acquainted, but indicates the claims are only Partly True.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
