When you put it that way LS's arguement does sound pretty lame.

Yes - and that's the issue.

This story will likely disappear: most media sources are obsessed with Obama and unquestioningly devoted to him. The last thing they want to deal with is a serious issue like this.

But it is nevertheless a question that should be answered. If it is another case of his involvement with radicals, that needs to be explained.

There is no indication that he accepts the beliefs of Ayers, or those of his fanatical pastor, but his involvement is certainly significant. It may be a case of youthful stupidity, or it may be a case of passivity, or both. Obama appears to be a man with no set principles or beliefs. That is definitely a problem.

__________________
Bring me my Bow of burning gold
Bring me my Arrows of desire
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

William Blake

dude...can you read?

I said;

actually think on this and what’s happened so far and maybe take Obama out of their equation.....nader, barr gavel, paul whomever if they cannot vote for mccain which is cool,

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

The key word is "appears". To me he doesn't appear to be a man with no principles.

No need to get impacient. I can read (which I think I've proven time and time again).

Forgive me and just respect that I can misinterpret or give a thoughtless answer once in awhile.

My sense is that in both cases it depends on which beliefs one is talking about. There's a lot to admire in both cases. There are also some things not to admire, a vandalistic past in the case of Ayers and some over-the-top rhetoric in the case of Wright. However, if you're looking to him to repudiate everything ever said or done by either man and have nothing to do with them henceforth -- well, I sincerely HOPE you will be disappointed -- although Obama is a politician, so you never know.

You know, some of this comes out of the COINTELPRO operation from the late '60s, in which the radicals of that time were made out to be worse than they really were, and the entire antiwar movement tarred by association with them, to try to discredit the movement. What was done to the Weathermen was a magnification and mischaracterization of a core of violence that, in this case, at least existed; what was done to the Black Panthers or to Malcolm X's movement was even worse, since in that case there was no such core. Let's finally recognize that what the FBI and government agencies did to shape public opinion at that time deserves no respect. The Weathermen committed crimes -- they destroyed government property and (perhaps) recklessly endangered people. That's the core of truth underlying all the lies. Granted that it was illegal and, in my opinion, wrong -- how seriously should we take it, merely because the FBI decided that the label "terrorists" should apply?

Do you believe everything the government tells you?

Vandalistic?

Over the top?

That is certainly a mild under-statement.

So terrorists are now just vandalistic?

And expressing rage and hatred from the pulpit is just a case of going over the top?

Those frolicsome, irrepressible left-wing zanies...What will they do next?

That is taking relativism to the point of absurdity and well beyond.

__________________
Bring me my Bow of burning gold
Bring me my Arrows of desire
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

William Blake

It's clear from the context that he understood you. He referred not only to McCain, but also to "maybe another candidate who I believe to have no chance in hell to win."

I agree with him, of course.

No. The Weathermen planted bombs that destroyed government property. Those bombs caused precisely ZERO casualties -- nobody was killed, nobody was hurt. They made sure of that. Destruction of property is vandalism, and vandalism is exactly the word to apply to it.

It's a crime, to be sure. I don't approve of it. But it was blown entirely out of proportion by the government at the time, and it's obvious why: because it was done in opposition to the war. The same thing, done by some loony for purely personal reasons, would not have provoked the same response.

It's being blown out of proportion on this forum, too.

Not true - during their ongoing criminal enterprise, they managed to kill two of their co-conspirators.

At a minimum, it's arson, not vandalism. Certainly not a petty misdemeanor.

I beg to disagree - your interpretation seems to be an attempt to excuse the very serious criminal nature of their conduct. Or perhaps even glorify it as something noble.

Sorry, but there is nothing noble, admirable, or even excusable about bombing things.

Personally, I'd have no issue with the lot of them setting in prison for life as a result of the deaths of their co-conspirators. And your implications to the contrary, that has nothing to do with their politics, just their criminal actions.

Matt

Ayers and his cohorts didn't decide to avoid hurting people until after three of their members blew themselves up my mistake. Prior to that, the intention was to kill as many as they could.

So, by your logic, if Timothy McVeigh had made a conscience choice to avoid injury or death of people by issuing a warning and exploding the bomb at night, it would have been OK. Nothing serious since no one got hurt. Is that your position?

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

Accidentally. As you know very well. By that reasoning, anyone who drives into a telephone pole and kills himself is a murderer.

I thought about that, but they weren't setting fires. Arson's a pretty specific crime. Vandalism isn't necessarily a petty misdemeanor, since it covers anything from writing graffiti on a wall to destroying a whole building. But there might be a better word for it.

No, it was certainly not a petty misdemeanor. Again, I'm saying that it's being blown out of proportion, not that it wasn't a crime even if you take it for what it was.

I can see why it might look that way, but all I'm doing is countering some irrational demonization. Let me put it this way: it was an unacceptable action in service to a noble cause.

There is a whole spectrum of civil disobedience in protest against government policy, from protests that stay within the law, to protests that violate the law nonviolently, to the kind of violence against property committed by the Weathermen, to the kind of violence against persons committed by Timothy McVeigh. I would generally draw the line between the second and third: trespass and obstruction of traffic can be morally acceptable even if they're illegal, but destruction of property, especially by explosives, to me carries too much risk of someone getting hurt. No one actually DID get hurt from any bomb planted by the Weathermen, but someone could have, if the warnings failed to be delivered or if someone didn't pay them proper attention, or if a bomb had gone off prematurely. I find that risk unacceptable.

However, people here (including yourself) seem to be treating this as if it were the fourth item on the above list -- violence against persons, mass murder of innocent civilians -- when it was nothing of the sort. I'm just trying to insert a little perspective and balance, and a view of the reality without the hype.

Clearly, the judge in the case had more sense of perspective on it than you do. Let me put it this way: the responsibility of a group's leaders for the accidental deaths of their followers, when the only actions the leaders took which led to those deaths was to form the group in the first place, is purely a technicality that can be USED to punish people severely when their actual deeds don't allow that. But by itself it doesn't JUSTIFY doing so, and the only reason to argue in favor of it is because you would like to punish them that severely for the things they actually DID, and can't.

What they actually did, however, was to plant bombs that destroyed government property. I'm not sure what the penalty is for that, but it certainly doesn't equate to what one would receive for murder. If they had been found guilty of murder on that technicality, it would have been a complete miscarriage of justice.

False. Issuing warnings and avoiding deaths was the group's policy from the beginning.

It would still have been wrong, but not nearly as bad. McVeigh was a mass murderer. Ayers is not. That doesn't make what he did "OK," but it does make it not nearly as bad as it's being made out to be on this forum by you and others.

Sorry, no.

Please research the felony murder doctrine for a clearer understanding of why what I am saying is correct, and why your phone pole analogy falls flat.

Yup - and the detonation of an explosive device in a structure qualified.

They bombed buildings. They killed - whether intentionally nor not - people in the course of their criminal enterprise.

The two people who died were violently killed as a result of a criminal conspiracy. The Weathermen members are directly responsible for that.

Two people died during the commission of a felony, said felony being committed in concert with others. Sorry, but that absolutely does justify punishing the surviving conspirators.

And I'd bet if these were "right wingers", you'd see it that way.

It would have been a completely proper application of justice. Just because you admire the motive for a felony doesn't make it not a felony. When a person dies as a result of a felony, that is murder.

Sorry if that's inconvenient for those who want to idolize the bombers, but the truth sucks sometimes.

Matt

You need to check your facts.


You also misrepresent his legal troubles in the old days. The Government dropped the charges against him because of illegal actions by the FBI, not because the charges weren't serious, as you imply.

It would be interesting if some prosecutor somewhere brought fresh charges with non-tainted evidence. Since he was never tried, double jeopardy wouldn't apply. It would be hilarious if he was charged in the deaths of his old Marxist comrades.

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist