<p>Hindoo - I’m STILL waiting for you to actually START a thread! There must be something on your mind that hasn’t been covered on CC.</p>
<p>Ok hinny - dream away! But don’t expect me to buy into it! :)</p>
<p>Mr. Darcy is a sacred character & I prefer not to commit blasphemy by even uttering his & foot-in-face’s names in the same sentence!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I LOL’d over this one! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if I threw a party and nobody came? :(</p>
<p>Oh, come on. Lot’s of people would jump at a chance to post on your thread, Hindoo. Haven’t you figured out yet that you’re well liked here, by Republicans, Democrats and us Independents, too! You’re among friends. Live a little!</p>
<p>OK, poet. I’ll think about it. … Whatever idea I come up with, it’ll no doubt end up being a free-for-all. Bz will sing the praises of McCain. … interesteddad will heap abuse on THE ONE … pmrlcomm will agree to disagree with me, then tell me how totally wrong I am … spideygirl will incite riots in her articulately conservative way. … You and woodwork and marite will wax eloquent on the liberal side of the banter. Dross will continue to amaze me … And no one will pay one bit of attention to what anyone else is saying. :)</p>
<p>To correct you dear, I told you how wrong you were then said we would agree to disagree… LOL</p>
<p>There do seem to be a small minority of us on these political threads. Kind of interesting. You do get to the point where you can kind of know what to expect. It’s all good conversation if not a good debate. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm… go back through all the pages of Parent’s Cafe and find one (one I beg of you) thread that someone started that no one ever responded to. It just doesn’t happen. A sure fire hit is to tell a funny story of something that happened to you (recently, or as a child) that you’ve been thinking about lately. Once you share it with others, it will remind many others of something similarly funny that happened to them, and thus the thread takes off. Sure bets are funny stories, and pet stories. Tell us what your favorite vacation ever is - someone on this forum will have been there (or near there), or someone will be contemplating going there, but never knew it was your favorite because you never talked about it. C’mon… Hindoo, Hindoo, Hindoo.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sure it does. Took me about 15 seconds to find one:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/535395-speaking-wants.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/535395-speaking-wants.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hindoo, I only wish I could be half as eloquent and thought-provoking as Drosselmeirer. Also, I’m a she and he’s a he;)</p>
<p>I guess I overlooked this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You reasonably should do more research into this subject before you minimize it so easily. While Obama had nothing to do with the Weather Underground by any information I’ve seen, Bill Ayers was a terrorist and the group was a terrorist group. Ayers has expressed regret for his activities, btw. </p>
<p>You do not want to become an apologist for Bill Ayers’ radical activities in the 1960s and 70s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assure you, I have read more than I need to know to come to a reasoned conclusion about Ayers’s group and terrorism. Unless we are willing to create a widely accepted definition for the word “terrorism” that is elastic enough to stretch toward meanings of radical revolutionary groups like the Ayers’s group, I contend that it is erroneous at best, dishonest at worst, to confuse Ayer’s group with Al Quaeda and Tim McVeigh by using the word “terrorism” for all of these people. Terrorist groups don’t usually issue public warnings explaining that people need to leave a government area, this, because of a genuine aim not to harm people.</p>
<p>I do not contend that the group was noble, and I do not minimize it easily. I wish you to be more meticulous with your use of words so that both your allies and opponents are not deceived into believing something that simply is untrue. If you “win” a debate by sleight of hand, you do not in fact win at all. You simply commit intellectual thievery without being caught. The price of this is high because people’s reputations are at stake. Rightists, even here on CC, are actually claiming that Obama is in league ‘with a known terrorist’ and they are offering nothing more about the claim. Thinking people know it is ridiculous, but America is unfortunately filled with unthinking people. We ought not attempt to slander Obama in this way. If we wish to mention his association with this brand of “terrorism”, so called, honor demands that we give a fully orbed view of it so that our readers can understand how it is that Obama is associated with it. Once we do this, we see that the claim is ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The operative word here is was. Even if we accept that Ayers was a terrorist, we can by no means claim he is a terrorist, and because our justice system has trained its attention on the matter, judging Ayers and setting him free to become a productive member of our society, I can see no reason why a young Obama, who was six years old at the time of Ayers’s error, cannot grow up to work for good with an older and wiser non-terrorist Ayers. Yet Obama is being condemned for the relationship. It is silly. We know it is silly, but McCain supporters insist on acting silly.</p>
<p>Of course, I reject the claim that Ayers was a terrorist in the first place. The Weathermen never harmed anyone but themselves, and in fact went out of their way to warn people so that no one would be harmed. Their aim was not to cause terror. They wanted to attack the American government via taking down its facilities only. Clearly they were violent and criminal. I do not deny this. But to confuse them with Osama bin Laden and Tim McVeigh is just plain wrong. These latter two men aimed to cause literal terror in humans by murdering them. That trait does not define the Weathermen and it makes all the difference in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which point I have already made [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060803791-post39.html]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060803791-post39.html]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sincerely disagree with this assessment and your contention is wrong. Terrorism is already defined by Webster’s Dictionary as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Clearly there IS already a widespread definition for terrorism. You obviously choose to minimize the application for those with which you appear to have sympathy. On one hand you blast professional and well educated members of large media organizations for their considered opinions, as when Charles Krauthammer and similar experts when they write that Reverend Wright is a racist, but then you imply that the Weather Underground merely puffed on the concept of terrorism but did not inhale. Sorry Dross, that is just wrong. </p>
<p>Consider the words of the Weather Underground themselves:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My friend, when this proclamation is combined with the setting of explosive devices that’s terrorism, with a capital “T”.</p>
<p>Let’s then look at what they claimed responsibility for:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You did not give any of these details in your earlier explanation for the destruction caused by the Weather Underground:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think most would agree reasonably agree that The Capitol, The Pentagon, The State Department Building and the other government buildings were a bit more than “police statues” and are remarkably similar to the actual and supposed targets of the 9/11 terrorists. You completely misrepresented the facts in your earlier defense which clearly shows where you want to promote your position. This is considered “dishonorable” isn’t it? </p>
<p>While you correctly assert that the Weatherman Underground gave warnings before it planted an explosive device, it was just dumb luck that their warnings got through in time to keep someone from being killed or injured. If their timing devices were off or had malfunctioned, who knows how many would have died. Then we should always consider the unintended consequences of placing 15 or 20 pounds of high explosive in congested metropolitan areas, set to explode, where old gas pipelines, for example, could be ruptured and cause enormous property damage and risk of loss of life. To ignore this risk is beyond “dishonest”. To minimize this for political purposes is reprehensible.</p>
<p>Indeed, after the State Department blast a number of bomb threats were phoned into other government buildings about mid-day, causing some 6,000 employees to evacuate. How many had heart attacks or strokes due to the stress of a forced evacuation occurred? How many were placed at risk of life and limb?. This is also terrorism, but without the actual high explosive being detonated.</p>
<p>Clarence Kelly, Director of the FBI at the time gave sworn testimony to the US Senate on the issue saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here we see that the US Government also called the activities of the group “terrorism” at the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this, but we’re talking presidential campaign politics which includes dirty tricks by the truck load - by both sides of the aisle. I am not saying Ayers is a terrorist today, in fact I rather think some of his passion for social justice comes from guilt due to his participation in Weatherman Underground attacks.</p>
<p>Ayers is a difficult issue for Obama as he has baggage that cannot be ignored. Were the issue reversed, I assure you the Democrat side would exploit it as well.</p>
<p>
How could he? The Weather Underground [was</a> defunct by the 1973](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)]was”>Weather Underground - Wikipedia), when Obama was 12 years old. </p>
<p>Whatever Ayers did, he was never convicted of any crimes and holds the title of “distinguished” professor of education at University of Illinois - Chicago, and that, and his position on the Woods Fund Board (a charitable foundation). The men are of different generations – outside of political or charitable activities, it is unlikely that they socialize much. Obama met Ayers in 1995, when Obama was 34 years old and first running for political office, and Ayers was 51 years old; he was introduced by Alice Palmer, the person who then held the office Obama was running for. It is ridiculous to suggest that Obama or anyone else should be running background checks on people they work with on civic organizations – or refusing to work with people who have been accepted in their communities because of activities or associations in the distant past. </p>
<p>
Source: [Rejecting</a> Obama’s Radical Friends - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html]Rejecting”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html)</p>
<p>If you really want to know who Obama’s friends are, check this article and Google to your heart’s delight: [Chicago</a> Ties Link Obama’s Inner Circle, Washington Post: Candidate’s Closest Friends Are A Cross Section Of The City’s Elite - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/washingtonpost/main4257052.shtml]Chicago”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/politics/washingtonpost/main4257052.shtml) (Anyway, you’re out of date with your Obama attacks. The secret-muslim, radical thing has become pass</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Terror was never the Weathermen’s aim, which is to say there was no “systematic” use of terror. If terror did occur, it was entirely incidental, and that can by no means justify associating the Weathermen with Al Qaeda. Bathrooms and statues do not experience terror when they are destroyed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I freely admit the WU was wrong, that their behavior was criminal and worthy of the harshest punishment. I reject that the incendiary term “terrorist”, with its popular meaning now being derived from such people as Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden, should be applied to these people. Unlike McVeigh and bin Laden, the Weathermen never wished to cause terror and even warned people so that they would not be in danger. That is not the behavior of terrorists. To be fair to history, we need some other term here so that readers will not be confused.</p>
<p>
False. Merely because they aim to “force” the government by use of bombs does not mean they are terrorists. The common meaning of the term applies to the use of weapons against people, especially non-military people. If we wish to apply the term to them, we need to be very clear to make a distinction between these brands of “terrorism” because one has nothing but a superficial resemblance to the other. But if we are going to hold to the common idea of the term, it can by no means apply to the Weathermen. Their aims had little to do with the use of terror and everything to do with harassment of government by taking down government facilities.
</p>
<p>I didn’t give the details because they are all of the same species. I hyperbolically included them in my description. Not a single innocent person died in any of these attacks, and that was by design. This is certainly not the behavior of the garden variety terrorist. We therefore ought not be so dishonest that we deliberately confuse them with terrorists. They are quite a different animal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The similarity is only superficial, but it will take a supple mind to see this. The 911 terrorists were obviously in the business of taking human life, especially human civilian life, so that they might cause horror in the larger American population. They were true terrorists. The Weathermen, on the other hand, wanted only to hit the government buildings and they went to great lengths to make sure to only hit the buildings, this, not to cause horror, but to cause harassment. By harassment, and not terror, they hoped to force the government toward its will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly did misrepresent the fact in an earlier post, but only as a matter of hyperbole. In a later post I was clearer about their activities. I used hyperbole in the earlier post to dismiss the severity of the group in general because in my mind, blowing up police statues, bathrooms, doors and a few rooms in an office is behavior that is all of the same species. All are minor inanimate targets the destruction of which is meaningless when compared to three thousand dead men and women. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the group gave warnings so that no one would be killed, and then accomplished this goal, then it was quite likely not “dumb luck” that no one was killed. The warnings very likely worked, and this means the WU can by no means be classified as a terrorist group in the traditional sense. To be fair to history, we must develop a new term for them, or make the common view of the word “terrorism” elastic enough to include groups that aim to avoid the use of terror while using bombs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We need not consider any of this. The point here concerns not what may have happened inadvertently as a result of the group’s behavior, but the intent and modus operandi of the group. That intent, clearly, undeniably, did not include the use of terror as a deliberate tool of the group. The group may have incidentally caused terror in its misguided aims to avoid it, but terror was decidedly not the aim of the group. Indeed, it went out of its way to avoid it. This is why no discussion of this group would be complete and fair by simply calling it a “domestic terrorist group”. Such a thing is to commit a dishonor to history by confusing, deliberately confusing, the meaning of the group with such groups as Al Qaeda and Hamas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! Well of course it was in the government’s interest to muddle the identity of the group in order to marshal public support. But, in case you are unaware of it, governments very frequently tell lies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I am just unwilling to misrepresent the facts of history, as you seem eager to do, merely because such a thing is par for the course in presidential campaign politics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ayers is a difficult issue for Obama only because so many Americans are dishonorable enough to long for it to be an issue. It is not an issue because of any honest and legitimate reading of the history. Obama was a kid at the time.</p>
<p>parent2noles:</p>
<p>You are wasting your time. Liberal Democrats and Obama supporters glorify terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and terrorist bombers like Williams Ayers. He and his ilk are “distinguished” heros to the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille, and Ayers’ close friend Barack Hussein Obama.</p>
<p>They will attack you visciously if you even suggest that there is something wrong with terrorist bombing. As the Republicans say, “Democrats are for bigger government, higher taxes, and waving the white flag in the war on terror.”</p>
<p>id–You are more full of it than anyone on CC. But I say that with fondness. :)</p>
<p>
Terrorist bombings are a good thing??</p>
<p>Drosselmeirer “glorified” The Weather Underground? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I see what you mean about such shameless glorification:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Likewise, Drosselmeirer’s “vicious attacks”. Guess he belongs in a federal prison along with his terrorist buddies, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is “Drosselmeirer”? I refered to Democratic leaders who have not rejected Barack Hussein Obama’s close ties with known terrorist bomber.</p>
<p>For the record, I agree with parent2noles that The Weather Underground meets the standard of a terrorist organization, but I also agree with Dross that, compared to the terrorist organizations of the past couple of decades, they were pikers. </p>
<p>Certainly they did inspire fear, considering the fact that most Americans were fairly passive, very much invested in the ideal of political and social conformity, and considered it down right unpatriotic to question or challenge government. And The Weather Underground did indeed use bombs, which have the very real potential to inflict injury or death. Despite prior warnings, the very idea was significantly fear inducing, knowing that the WU had proved themselves willing to follow through with their threats. Such tactics had never been employed before, certainly not on such a scale or against buildings that so represented the authority of government. But, it’s also pretty obvious that the killing of human beings, innocent or otherwise, was not the intention of the group.</p>
<p>Timothy McVey and his associates, on the other hand, (and I do say, “associates” because I am convinced that he did not act alone) were terrorists with a capital T. Their objective was not only protest against the government of The United States, but destruction of human life on a massive scale. Bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists obviously intended mind-boggling death and destruction. So I agree with Drosselmeirer that to equate the The Weather Underground with Al Queda, and to disingenuously imply that Barack Obama is to be damned by extension is to employ the use of a bomb of another sort—a fat, hairy, puss-filled fear bomb, that serves the purpose of political terror.</p>