The Hyperbole of a Conservative
by George Will

WASHINGTON -- Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around."

America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."

The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.

Probably as temporary as New York City's rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting the city's housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.

The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution -- the federal government -- will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets allocate resources, or government -- meaning politics -- allocates them. Now that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the institution they trust least -- Congress -- will pony up $1 trillion and then passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate "socially responsible" spending -- an infinitely elastic term -- by the favored companies.

Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has approved, but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and saying, "Please, sir, I want some more."

McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.

Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious -- destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health care plan depended.

Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.

In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.

As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways -- this will not be easy -- to expand, even more than the current administration has, government's influence on spreading the wealth around.

...

You do this quite a bit. The implication being that Bush is no different than Stalin or Marx. This isn't true, if it were, you'd embrace the guy.

The fact is, you're doing this to down play the overt socialist tendency of the Democrats. It's as you're doing in the other thread and Obama's ties to domestic terror, you try to find a weak association (even if it's totally false) on the right so that you can dismiss the overt behavior on the left.

The same applies for this socialist agenda. We, as conservatives,can't oppose full out socialism as represented by Obama because some members of the "right" have supported programs with some similar elements. "how can you oppose socialism when your party also supported the $700B bail out...." purely to end the debate and avoid scrutiny.


It's a sneaky tactic and really rather dishonest..

You do this quite a bit. The implication being that Bush is no different than Stalin or Marx. This isn't true, if it were, you'd embrace the guy.

The fact is, you're doing this to down play the overt socialist tendency of the Democrats. It's as you're doing in the other thread and Obama's ties to domestic terror, you try to find a weak association (even if it's totally false) on the right so that you can dismiss the overt behavior on the left.

The same applies for this socialist agenda. We, as conservatives,can't oppose full out socialism as represented by Obama because some members of the "right" have supported programs with some similar elements. "how can you oppose socialism when your party also supported the $700B bail out...." purely to end the debate and avoid scrutiny.


It's a sneaky tactic and really rather dishonest..

Wow - that sort of response just because I posted what I thought was a rather funny political cartoon that appeared to apply to the subject of this thread.

I believe the only thing I have posted regarding Bush and socialism was

But, compared to W. Bush - one of the biggest socialist presidents we have ever had (according to Ben Stein on Larry King - wow - I was shocked), I actually think Obama's socialistic tendencies will be less.


I just stated that Ben Stein thought that Bush was a big socialist, and that IMO Obama's tendencies will be less. My personal thoughts regarding the extent of Bush's socialist tendencies were never stated.

Once again Calabrio those blanket assumptions you keep making about me are continuing to nibble your butt... you must like the sensation ;)

Wow - that sort of response just because I posted what I thought was a rather funny political cartoon.

I believe the only thing I have posted regarding Bush and socialism was

I just stated that Ben Stein thought that Bush was a socialist. My personal thoughts were never stated.

Once again Calabrio those blanket assumptions you keep making about me are continuing to nibble your butt... you must like the sensation ;)

"Oh heavens, I said no such thing..... I just repeated something without any thought of what it meant." Nonsense, are you to haveus believe that you're too naive to do that on purpose? You reposted those things because you are advancing a position. You do it here all the time, I see it done constantly in the political world. It's basically the classic liberal defense of calling someone a hypocrite. It used to be reserved for just moral and ethical things, but it's increasingly being used as a way of dismissing and disguising the political policy and ideas.

As I just mentioned, there are two topics right now you're employing this tactic. With Bill Ayers association with Obama- implying that since some fools say that McCain or Palin have a loose association with a radical, then we should disregard the HISTORY Obama has with an outspoken domestic terrorist and radical Marxist. And on the issue of the radical shift to the left the Democrat leadership is positioning to take this country. Charges of socialism or concerns about big government, wasteful spending will be downplayed or dismissed the same way.

My understanding is that you've been playing this political game longer than some of us have been alive. The doe in the headlights thing doesn't work.

If you look very closely Calabrio I very rarely repost anything from anywhere else. I very rarely just copy an article and post it here on the site, like others do all the time (like this thread for instance, which you started...)

You reposted those things because you are advancing a position. You do it here all the time, I see it done constantly in the political world..
If the shoe fits Calabrio...

I do post cartoons occasionally, like the Palin cartoons.. and the one above.

Quit now... I am not going to smear McCain (I think many people consider Liddy a Fascist, much as many people consider Ayers a Marxist) - smear Obama all you want - it obviously isn't an equal correlation.

I believe you Calabrio are longer in tooth than I am, but I could be wrong... And I am very proud of my political past - I have worked hard for the things I believe in. I do not just sit on the sidelines and complain - I believe you are of the same ilk - I would imagine you have worked hard on political campaigns as well, or held political office - right? I applaud that on both sides of the fence Calabrio.

Oh, it would be a vixen in the headlights...;) I eat venison...:)

If you look very closely Calabrio I very rarely repost anything from anywhere else. I very rarely just copy an article and post it here on the site, like others do all the time (like this thread for instance, which you started...)

Yes, and when you do, you have a reason for doing so.
It's not free association. I'm confident that you don't post in a political forum without being on point.

Quit now... I am not going to smear McCain (I think many people consider Liddy a Fascist, much as many people consider Ayers a Marxist) - smear Obama all you want - it obviously isn't an equal correlation.
And many people on the left call George W. a Nazi, it's of little relevance. Liddy IS NOT a fascist, in fact, if you listen to him speak, he couldn't have less in common with a fascist. He's vocally against a strong central government for fear of it's fascist tendencies. "Many people" that you refer to are fools or liars.

However, Ayers IS a radical leftsist, he IS a MARXIST, he IS a domestic terrorist... this isn't an issue of debate.


On a side note, I would LOVE to see G. Gordon Liddy and Bill Ayer locked in a room together... where only one guy could leave.

I've also noticed that fox deliberately attempts to hide her point amidst a sprinkling of frivolity, making her posts difficult to read and hard to nail down her point. This is done with the purpose of allowing wiggle room to claim "Wha-? Me?" later.

It's a classic liberal doublespeak, which is the polar opposite of being direct, saying exactly what you mean.

For the record, when I read "many people consider Liddy a fascist" I nearly spit my drink all over my monitor in incredulity and mirth.

Calabrio,

Out of the all the posts you have started since the 1st of the month - this is the breakdown...
videos 6
articles 10
transcript of radio show 1
link to website 1
original 1

So it looks like Calabrio you are 18 to one on reposting just starting threads. And I have no idea of how many 'reposts' are within the various threads

I don't think I have started a thread - but, as far as reposting within a thread, maybe a couple?

Actually I am glad you post some of this stuff - I am a pretty regular reader of American Thinker - but the rest of the right - not so much. This is good exposure to the 'dark side'...;)

Let's look at this from another point of view...

Liddy IS a right radical nutcase, he WAS a fascist (in the 30s when he was growing up) and he IS a domestic terrorist... this isn't an issue of debate (oh, making arbitrary decrees... this is fun, I see why you do it Calabrio).

On a side note, I would LOVE to see G. Gordon Liddy and Bill Ayer locked in a room together... where only one guy could leave.

Ah, just what a good fascist would like - might makes right.... :)

And yes Foss - I am guilty of sprinkling frivolity, and yes, I can be hard to nail down, because, well, why should I make it easy? It is not however to make for wiggle room, it is just I am not all that comfortable with being beaten up all the time.

But, I do like how you liked my Liddy joke Foss (I hope you didn't hurt your computer with the spit take :p ) I was rather shocked myself when I was looking at Liddy facts and there was all this stuff about Liddy being a fascist.. it is pretty funny. I hope you enjoyed the 'mirth'. The world can use lots of mirth...

And yes Foss - I am guilty of sprinkling frivolity, and yes, I can be hard to nail down, because, well, why should I make it easy? It is not however to make for wiggle room, it is just I am not all that comfortable with being beaten up all the time.
If you'd just speak plainly and directly, you wouldn't be beaten up. What are you afraid of, that you would lose arguments on the merits? Otherwise why would you be worried about it? :rolleyes:

But, I do like how you liked my Liddy joke Foss (I hope you didn't hurt your computer with the spit take :p ) I was rather shocked myself when I was looking at Liddy facts and there was all this stuff about Liddy being a fascist.. it is pretty funny. I hope you enjoyed the 'mirth'. The world can use lots of mirth...This is classic misdirection, fox, and it's why I really don't like talking to you: You deliberately misconstrue my point. Calabrio was just pointing this out - that's what you do. It's incredibly frustrating, and I'm flirting with the ignore button, to be frank. It's just not worth wasting the time replying to you anymore.

Now I suppose in classic foxpaws misdirecting fashion, you will crack some joke about me flirting.

Fine Foss, have fun among the right patting each other on the back.

Right now, I am pretty much it for you to argue with out here. Well, you could have jagger, just mention the second amendment, the militia, and how we shouldn't be allowed our guns because Madison is a butt monkey (here jagger, jagger, here jagger, jagger - we will see if the bait works.)

You have been in the forum wars for a long time, I have not. My skin isn't as thick as yours. It still hurts sometimes...

Oh, I believe I will never win an argument out here - that is a pretty telling statement - I will continue to try to be a voice for the left - perhaps not the most 'clear and concise', or literate, and without any merit, but passionate (that however doesn't count for much does it?)

Now the victim card comes out. You don't have to whine. Is it possible for you to have an honest debate, or do you always have to misdirect?

Calabrio,
Out of the all the posts you have started since the 1st of the month...
I don't think I have started a thread - but, as far as reposting within a thread, maybe a couple?
You're so far off topic, it can not be an accident.
What's at issue isn't whether you "repost" information off the web. I You're changing the subject.

I'm specifically commenting on the POINT YOU MADE. You posted something, in this case an editorial cartoon, to make a point and I'm taking issue with both your point and the underhanded tactic that is being used.


Liddy IS a right radical nutcase, he WAS a fascist (in the 30s when he was growing up) and he IS a domestic terrorist... this isn't an issue of debate (oh, making arbitrary decrees... this is fun, I see why you do it Calabrio).
Again, this thread isn't about G. Gordon Liddy, it's about your dishonest tactic of misrepresenting the truth and then using a "they all do it" argument to avoid having to deal with the facts.

You're claims about Liddy are simply untrue. To imply he was a "fascist in the 1930s is utterly ridiculous. He was born in 1930. So are you trying to say that he was a ideological fascist while in preschool? A fascist first grader perhaps? How can you have any intellectual integrity if you continue to repeat this nonsense? He is NOT a domestic terrorist. He was a soldier, he was an acclaimed FBI agent, he is a felon, and worst of all, he was a lawyer. But there's no "domestic terrorism." The Jack Anderson story is not "domestic terrorism" by any definition of terrorism. Bill Ayers was actually responsible for the death and maiming of people.

Now, here's another opportunity for you, tell me I'm wrong when I saw Bill Ayers IS a Marxist, he IS a domestic terrorist, and that he IS a radical leftist who hates what this country has been.

You reposted those things because you are advancing a position.

I guess I misunderstood this statement of your Calabrio - maybe you should clarify it for me.

Don't you post all those things to advance a position?

If not, why do you post all those things?

Oh, there is quite a bit about how as a school child Liddy was inspired by Hitler - he even had it in one of his books. It had to do with growing up in a very German neighborhood. He has denounced Hitler since then...

Oh, Ayers was a terrorist, was a marxist, and is a radical leftist. And check out the DODs definition of terrorist...

I guess I misunderstood this statement of your Calabrio - maybe you should clarify it for me.

Don't you post all those things to advance a position?

If not, why do you post all those things?

Oh, there is quite a bit about how as a school child Liddy was inspired by Hitler - he even had it in one of his books. It had to do with growing up in a very German neighborhood. He has denounced Hitler since then...

Oh, Ayers was a terrorist, was a marxist, and is a radical leftist. And check out the DODs definition of terrorist...You're still trying to argue off topic "the other side does it." And now you're backpedaling.

No, I am actually really confused - I was trying to find out why all these things get reposted out here - you do it too foss.

I didn't say that I didn't like it, in fact I said it was a good opportunity for me to read things I normally wouldn't read.

So, just as a simple question, why do you repost? Isn't it to advance a position?

No, I am actually really confused - I was trying to find out why all these things get reposted out here - you do it too foss.

I didn't say that I didn't like it, in fact I said it was a good opportunity for me to read things I normally wouldn't read.

So, just as a simple question, why do you repost? Isn't it to advance a position?

I personally, will repost an article as the start of a thread to expose it to those who frequent this forum. At the very least, it will educate people on a point of view or perspective (and often facts) on an issue that they may not be aware of or have considered. If they find something objectionable in the argument, then is opens up a debate on that issue.

I will cite and quote other articles in the middle of a debate, but personally try not to repost whole articles as a form of counterargument in the middle of a debate. It seems lazy and insulting to people trying to debate, as well as potentially being an underhanded tactic to avoid making the argument yourself.

I guess I misunderstood this statement of your Calabrio - maybe you should clarify it for me.
Don't you post all those things to advance a position?
If not, why do you post all those things?

Absolutely- and I'm challenging you on that position.


Oh, there is quite a bit about how as a school child Liddy was inspired by Hitler - he even had it in one of his books. It had to do with growing up in a very German neighborhood. He has denounced Hitler since then...
Yes, so as a little boy he found a very powerful speakers speeches to be inspiring. Not only are to commenting on the world view of a little child, you're doing it based on events PRIOR to the war. What a deceitful and manipulative trick.

I'm just shocked... disgusted actually, that you are continuing this. Clearly, this charge you keep making is void of any substance, yet you continue to repeat it. I guess if you say it often enough, someone will remember it and continue it forward for you. And if you plant that lie, it's easier to continue with the other lies and deception that's associated with insulating Obama from Ayers.


Oh, Ayers was a terrorist, was a marxist, and is a radical leftist. And check out the DODs definition of terrorist...
Has he renounced his terrorist actions? Apologized for them? To the contrary, he DEFENDS them.
And he's still a radical leftist, marxist... Ayers even says that he's a Marxist.

I know the various definitions of terrorism. No two organizations have come up with the same legal definition of terrorism. But terrorism is basically understood to mean causing death or serious injury to civilians with the purpose of influencing or intimidating a government. That sounds exactly like Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground. And had those dangerous bastards not blown themselves up, we probably would have seen more death and maiming from them.

You reposted those things because you are advancing a position. You do it here all the time, I see it done constantly in the political world.

I do it 'all the time'? I very rarely do it. I argue on my opinions or direct quote almost entirely Calabrio. I almost never repost anything, to either start an argument, or to bolster my position.

I guess the few times I have reposted something it was to further my leftist viewpoint - it would be rather stupid to post something to further your viewpoint over mine.

So, I guess I am still confused about this - 'all the time' thing... But thanks for clarifying that you do it 'absolutely'.;) I was really confused that you were accusing me of doing it, but it seemed like you were saying that you weren't doing it...

But terrorism is basically understood to mean causing death or serious injury to civilians with the purpose of influencing or intimidating a government.

So, if terrorism is defined as action as you stated - why do people get arrested for just planning terrorist activities?

And had those dangerous bastards not blown themselves up, we probably would have seen more death and maiming from them.

And you know if Liddy would have had his way he would have killed Jack Anderson, kidnapped people and shipped them off to Mexico, and more. Thank goodness there were a few people left in the Nixon administration that put some reins on that nut case...

Oh, and something else Calabrio - once again in an effort to understand this - reposting is an OK thing? Earlier on in this thread you seemed to state that it wasn't an OK thing...
It's basically the classic liberal defense of calling someone a hypocrite. It used to be reserved for just moral and ethical things, but it's increasingly being used as a way of dismissing and disguising the political policy and ideas.

But, maybe it is just bad when I do it... :confused:

You can not seriously be this obtuse.
I have not and I would not take issue with your posting articles, editorials, or political cartoons from outside sources. I think that it can be a very effective tool to stimulate debate or to make a conscise point. Have I made myself clear?

I am taking issue with the POINT YOU WERE MAKING and the tactic you have repeatedly employed in the argument. NOT posting from another source, but the technique of making a weak association of some perceived negative with a conservative or Republican and then using that to dismiss a well support, considerably more serious charge facing Obama or the political left.

In this thread, in this thread you are reinforcing the Bush embraces socialist principles so that you can later use that to dismiss the claim that Democrats and Obama are aggressively pursuing socialist policies.

Another example is your trying to misrepresent G Gordon Liddy and then link him to McCain in an effort to deceptively portray McCain as having a radical terrorist tie so that you can use it to dismiss the credible and considerably more serious association Obama has.

What makes this even more despicable is the fact you are fully aware of just how dishonest this is. You're engaged in a very conscious, very manipulative, very dishonest form of spin and disinformation.

The Liddy topic is a Democrat talking point, repeated all over the web. Even Letterman was prompt to ask it before his interview with McCain. However, I'm confident that you know how dishonest the Liddy claims your making are. And when you're called on it, you simply move to the next talking point.

As for the "definition" of terror-
since there is no single definition to speak of. An act of terrorism is certainly different than simply planning one. In the case of Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground, they both ENGAGED in terrorism as well as planned to commit MORE terrorist acts.

You're attempts to call Liddy a terrorist are simply ridiculous. They don't even resemble that definition.

So, in short, we've put to rest your absurd claim that he was a fascist.
You're implication that he was a Nazi sympathizer was a lie too.
You're claim that he was a terrorist is false.

Yet despite all this, Bill Ayers STILL is a Marxist, radical terrorist with blood on his hands.
Despite all this, the Democrat party is STILL preparing to implement a radically leftist political agenda come January, made possible by the election of Obama.

Have I made myself clear?

And, by the way, this dishonest 'tactic' is bad whenever anyone does it. I just expected more from you. I expected an honest and candid public exchange of ideas, not spin and deception.
Reposting is fine, but I'm going to call you on it when I feel you're purposefully being deceptive.

the reference of g liddy and mccain is to show the absurdity of the link of ayers and obama. republicans keep up with a smear tactic then howl when it gets reversed.

"Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground, they both ENGAGED in terrorism as well as planned to commit MORE terrorist acts."


and liddy planned terrorist acts. and liddy's tricks were funded by a president elect from his campaign fund. his terrorist acts were just found out before he had time to implement them. so a terrorist stopped before he implements his plan is not a terrorist? i fail to see the rationalization. so there are a lot of people in guantanomo who should be freed.

So, I am not allowed to ever make the point that it is wrong for you to cry 'socialist' (or anything else we happen to be discussing at the time) for one side of the political fence, while you ignore the same exact behavior on the other side of the fence?

I can claim in a new thread that Bush is an 'over the top' socialist - and you aren't allowed to bring Obama into the discussion at all? Or anyone else, like FDR, right? I asked once, long ago, for an explanation of your sandbox rules, and never got any replies... So, this is a sandbox rule?

As far as Liddy - I can't believe you are defending the man. However, I guess it works both ways, you can't believe that I would defend Ayers. Just because Ayers was a successful terrorist and Liddy was an impotent one doesn't make one 'more' of a terrorist, just 'better'.

Another example is your trying to misrepresent G Gordon Liddy and then link him to McCain in an effort to deceptively portray McCain as having a radical terrorist tie so that you can use it to dismiss the credible and considerably more serious association Obama has.

And, maybe you didn't read my posts on the other thread - You are welcome to make the 'reflects his character' argument regarding Ayers and Obama. I won't claim that McCain's association is a reflection of his character. It is wrong. I lost, Shag won, period. You can continue the absurdity of it all, I gave up - the rights blinders are too firmly in place. Shag was willing to argue that McCain's character could be impinged by his relationship with Liddy - I won't go down that road, even though the right is willing to.

Despite all this, the Democrat party is STILL preparing to implement a radically leftist political agenda come January, made possible by the election of Obama.

Have I made myself clear?

You have made yourself clear about many, many things. And you have made yourself clear I am despicable, dishonest (4 times), manipulative, deceptive (2), and probably more. What did I forget to list Calabrio?

And, believe me, I wasn't even going to argue on this thread - I had run across the cartoon a couple of days ago and thought it was funny. I figured I would post it here when someone came up with the tired 'Obama is a socialist' statement, you just happened to be the first one Calabrio. I actually am not too fond of debating the future... The future is just pretty much undebatable.

...liddy planned terrorist acts. and liddy's tricks were funded by a president elect from his campaign fund. his terrorist acts were just found out before he had time to implement them. so a terrorist stopped before he implements his plan is not a terrorist? i fail to see the rationalization. so there are a lot of people in guantanomo who should be freed.

More lies from hrmwrm...

Liddy did nothing even close to a terrorist act. None of the planned acts qualify as a terrorist act in any way. Criminal? yes. Violent? yes. Terrorist? no.

And of course, of the two criteria I spelled out, you are dishonestly (as usual) ignoring the more relevant and damning one, when it comes to your attempted smear here. Anyone planning a terrorist act could still be a would-be terrorist. But that is beside the point...

None of the actions Liddy planned would qualify as terrorism. They would have to be aimed at intimidation and coercion, which they decidedly were not. They were aimed at neutralization and elimination of threats to Nixon's political power. If you cannot acknowledge that fact, they you are, once again being blatantly dishonest.

Isn’t the kidnapping plot, put forth by Liddy, involving protestors during the 1972 RNC, a terrorist plan?

Certainly it would have been a show of intimidation – ‘try to protest and we (the government) will kidnap you and ship you off to Mexico’

And as for as coercion…
to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
Wasn’t Liddy plotting to control the protesters by exploiting their fear of being kidnapped and sent off to Mexico?

Government terrorism – right?

What am I missing here Shag?

Isn’t the kidnapping plot, put forth by Liddy, involving protestors during the 1972 RNC, a terrorist plan?

Certainly it would have been a show of intimidation – ‘try to protest and we (the government) will kidnap you and ship you off to Mexico’

And as for as coercion…
to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.
Wasn’t Liddy plotting to control the protesters by exploiting their fear of being kidnapped and sent off to Mexico?

Government terrorism – right?

What am I missing here Shag?

Taking them to Mexico would neutralize them as a theat to Nixon's power, at least through the election. There was no reason to take them to Mexico if the goal was merely intimidation. It would be excessive, at best. To take them to Mexico goes well beyond simply intimidating; it removes them from the picture, which was the ultimate goal...

You could do other things that were much less elaborate and costly, if the goal was simply to inimidate: threaten legal action, release personal information, etc. etc.... basically, the type of actions Obama and his supporters did to anyone who opposed them in this election (Palin, Joe the Plumber, Kurtz, Obama opposition in Missouri, etc. etc.)

Update:
As you can see from this (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=PK3QpOBoEHEC&dq=gordon+liddy+will&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=WA6Pk7mQWW&sig=DgK9C5Kvk21AQfPeWyubD7PMios&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA272,M1) excerpt in Liddy's own book, the plot to kidnap people was very specific and with a very specific goal of neutralizing a threat through the convention:
I pointed out that we would be dealing with skilled and determined urban guerrillas who had been distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention, including homemade bombs; that the Sports Arena area would be impossible to hold against a well-led mob attack; and that I proposed to emulate the Texas Rangers be identifying the leaders through intelligence before the attack got under way, kidnap them, drug them, and hold them in Mexico until after the convention was over, then release them unharmed and still wondering what happened.
If mere intimidation was the goal, then leaving them "still wondering what happened" would go against that goal. You would want them to know what happened and "take the hint"...

Clearly, intimidation and coercion was not the goal.

Taking them to Mexico would neutralize them as a theat to Nixon's power, at least through the election. There was no reason to take them to Mexico if the goal was merely intimidation. It would be excessive, at best. To take them to Mexico goes well beyond simply intimidating; it removes them from the picture, which was the ultimate goal...

You could do other things that were much less elaborate and costly, if the goal was simply to inimidate: threaten legal action, release personal information, etc. etc.... basically, the type of actions Obama and his supporters did to anyone who opposed them in this election (Palin, Joe the Plumber, Kurtz, Obama opposition in Missouri, etc. etc.)

So, Liddy's plan, by going beyond intimidation, disqualifies it as a terrorist act?

So, if say if terrorists in South America just hassle people and put them under a media microscope, that would be intimidation, and therefore a terrorist act.

But, if those same terrorists plan to kidnap those same people and 'remove' them from the picture, that isn't considered a terrorist act?

Shag, I really don't understand your definition here... the lesser offense - harassment (threaten legal action, release personal information) is defined as a terrorist intimidation tactic, but the much larger offense of kidnapping isn't defined as a terrorist intimidation tactic?

You were the one that included 'intimidation' in your definition of terrorism, I guess I am failing to see where the threat of kidnapping isn't an act of intimidation.

If mere intimidation was the goal, then leaving them "still wondering what happened" would go against that goal. You would want them to know what happened and "take the hint"...

Clearly, intimidation and coercion was not the goal.

So, the fact that the urban guerrillas were missing wouldn't be an act of 'intimidation'? Wouldn't the protesters that remained behind be intimidated by the fact that the leaders of their movement were suddenly, and inexplicably missing?

'Oh my gosh, what happened to Fred, John, Sally, (insert guerrillas' names here), why aren't they here?' 'They just disappeared. They must have been removed or threatened by the government (they would have come to that conclusion - they hated the government, i.e. protesters). We better not protest, or maybe we will disappear too.'

Intimidation at its finest...

So, Liddy's plan, by going beyond intimidation, disqualifies it as a terrorist act?

So, if say if terrorists in South America just hassle people and put them under a media microscope, that would be intimidation, and therefore a terrorist act.

But, if those same terrorists plan to kidnap those same people and 'remove' them from the picture, that isn't considered a terrorist act?

Shag, I really don't understand your definition here... the lesser offense - harassment (threaten legal action, release personal information) is defined as a terrorist intimidation tactic, but the much larger offense of kidnapping isn't defined as a terrorist intimidation tactic?

You were the one that included 'intimidation' in your definition of terrorism, I guess I am failing to see where the threat of kidnapping isn't an act of intimidation.

Whatever offense is "lesser" or "greater" is irrelevant. I was pointing out that the goal of the act was never to intimidate or coerce, which it would have to be to qualify as terrorism. The degree of the potetional act is irrelevant to proving or disproving that. What is relevant is the goal and purpose in committing the act. Clearly the goal of Liddy's plan was not intimidation but neutralization of a threat.

So, the fact that the urban guerrillas were missing wouldn't be an act of 'intimidation'?

'Oh my gosh, what happened to Fred, John, Sally, (insert guerrillas' names here), why aren't they here?' 'They just disappeared. They must have been removed or threatened by the government (they would have come to that conclusion - they hated the government, i.e. protesters). We better not protest, or maybe we will disappear too.'

Intimidation at its finest...

No, it is not "intimidation"...

It is cutting off the head to make the mob a non-threat. The fact that those leaders were not there would do that. Weather or not the followers in the crowd knew what happened would be irrelevant to that goal; there would be no leaders, so the mob would be unorganized and easier to control.

Basically, the goal of terrorism is to send a message through violence. The goal of Liddy's plan was never to "send a message", but to neutralize a threat.

No shag, he wanted to make sure certain things weren't going to happen, by removing the leadership of the protesters, he would have intimidated the remaining protesters into not taking action.

Just as if he would have killed Jack Anderson he would have been sending a message of 'intimidation'. "If you are a reporter you better not mess with Nixon, otherwise you will die, just like Anderson."

No shag, he wanted to make sure certain things weren't going to happen, by removing the leadership of the protesters, he would have intimidated the remaining protesters into not taking action.

Just as if he would have killed Jack Anderson he would have been sending a message of 'intimidation'. "If you are a reporter you better not mess with Nixon, otherwise you will die, just like Anderson."

Show me quotes were that is the stated goal (directly or implied). Otherwise, it is rather obvious that you are simply assuming what you damn well please here, and ignoring what the facts, in context, say.:rolleyes:

The stated goal of kidnapping those leaders (in Liddy's own words) was to make the mob, "leaderless". And it isn't like these people were merely innocent protestors, these plans were made to deal with leftist guerrillas who, "...had been distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention, including homemade bombs". Even if the goal was to intimidate, the action was targeted specifically toward those radicals; not towards a government or society in general (which would be necessary to meet the DOD definition of terrorism that you wanna use). Let's be clear, no innocents or government officials were ever targeted in this plan, in any potential actions or supposed attempt at intimidation through the action. However, that was the case with Ayers actions.

Well, shag, lets just start with the 'full' quote that you so nicely posted just a portion of...

From Will: The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy (I got my quote from an excellent Time magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924022-5,00.html) from 1980 - "Watergate's Sphinx Speaks" which discusses the book, and has a very interesting interview with Liddy - I highly recommend it. You might get a better idea of the type of nut case this man is... But, shag, if you had read the entire page of the book that you linked to you would have also found the rest of this passage...

I proposed to emulate the Texas Rangers by identifying the leaders through intelligence before the attack got under way, kidnap them, drug them, and hold them in Mexico until after the convention was over, then release them unharmed and still wondering what happened. Leaderless, the attack would be further disrupted by faked assembly orders and messages, and if it ever did get off the ground it would be much easier to repel. The sudden disappearances, which I labeled on the chart in the original German, Nacht und Nebel (”Night and Fog”), would strike fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas. The chart labeled the team slated to carry out the night and fog plan as a “Special Action Group” and, when John Mitchell asked, “What’s that?” and expressed doubt that it could perform as I had explained, I grew impatient.

So, striking fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas - Liddy's term (who were innocent, they wanted to protest at the convention, not a crime at all, they hadn't been convicted, or even officially accused of anything, Liddy was taking a preemptive action). Isn't that on your list shag? I think that one is on the coercion list... to dominate or control (i.e. they would be easier to repel), esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.

And intimidation... the definition of intimidation is: to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear... so aren't the guerrillas 'easier to repel' because of the atmosphere of 'fear'?

There you go shag - in the very excerpt you used, I got it...

Oh, and in case you wondered Nacht und Nebel was a Nazi directive in WWII - "The order stated that any underground resistance activities against the Reich carried out in Western Europe would be punished in the most severe ways."
Hitler's purpose in issuing this decree was stated by Keitel in a covering letter, dated 12th December, 1941, to be as follows: Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred to Germany.

Odd that Liddy used this term for his plan as well... As the 'innocent' families and friends of the 'innocent' kidnap victims wouldn't know their fate they would have been subject to 'efficient and enduring intimidation'. Just as I had stated earlier Shag...

That was sloppy of me wasn't it. Sorry about that.

I was in a rush to post before I went to class (I was still late, BTW) and that link wouldn't allow you to cut and paste, so I had to type it all out. I skimmed till I found the part I needed and typed it; looks like I should have skimmed down a bit further. It wasn't intentional, but that is no excuse. I was effectively taking Liddy out of context. Again, sorry about that. It was a mistake on my part. ;)

Still, it doesn't change anything...

Again, for reference, here (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=PK3QpOBoEHEC&dq=gordon+liddy+will&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=WA6Pk7mQWW&sig=DgK9C5Kvk21AQfPeWyubD7PMios&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA271,M1) is the full quote...
DIAMOND was our counterdemonstration plan. At the time, we still expected the convention to be held in San Diego. I repeated my objections to the site, then pointed out that the best technique for dealing with a mob had been worked out years before by the famed Texas Rangers. They were so few that law enforcement types still tell the story of the town that telegraphed Ranger headquarters for help is supressing a riot and were startled to see a solitary Ranger ride into town. "There's only one of you?!" they cried, and the Ranger replied quietly, "There's only one riot, ain't there?"
The Texas Ranger technique was to linger on the fringes of the disturbance, watching until they could identify the leaders, then work their way through the crowd to leaders and beat the hell out of them until, leaderless, the rioters became easy to disperse.
I pointed out that we would be dealing with skilled and determined urban guerrillas who had been distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention, including homemade bombs; that the Sports Arena area would be impossible to hold against a wel-led mob attack; and that I proposed to emulate the Texas Rangers by identifying the leaders through intelligence before the attack got under way, kidnap them, drug them, and hold them in Mexico until after the convention was over, then release them unharmed and still wondering what happened. Leaderless, the attack would be further disrupted by faked assembly orders and messages, and if it ever did get off the ground it would be much easier to repel. The sudden disappearances, which I labeled on the chart in the original German, Nacht und Nebel (”Night and Fog”), would strike fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas. The chart labeled the team slated to carry out the night and fog plan as a “Special Action Group” and, when John Mitchell asked, “What’s that?” and expressed doubt that it could perform as I had explained, I grew impatient.
Here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism) is the definition of terrorism I cited in this post (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=447725&postcount=27):
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Here is what I wrote in post #28 (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=447731&postcount=28) of this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=47951):
For it to be terrorism, two things have to be in place:

The act has to be aimed at coercion, and
The act has to actually have taken place


Here is the Department Of Defense definition of terrorism that you cited in post #30 (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=447739&postcount=30)of that same thread:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological, also antiterrorism; counterterrorism (FM 1‑02)

And here is why Liddy's actions never met any of those definitions:
Liddy never committed any of the actions in question.
None of the planned actions was aimed at coercion or intimidation. That was an added benifit that he acknowledged in the book and used to sell the plan, but the obvious purpose was to neutralize the mob by removing it's leadership and effectively removing the head of the inpromptu organization. The intention was not to intimidate, but to neutralize.
Liddy's plan was never aimed at the government or society in general (or in any way causing political change). It's scope was very limited to the potential rioters and their leaders. It was aimed at security.
Liddy was working for the government. While his actions may have gone beyond the scope of power of the executive branch, they were aimed at countering potential rioters who were likely to use terrorist tactics at the convention. If anything, counterterrorism might be more accurate (but not by much), but not terrorism.


So, striking fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas - Liddy's term (who were innocent, they wanted to protest at the convention, not a crime at all, they hadn't been convicted, or even officially accused of anything, Liddy was taking a preemptive action).

They were innocent?! :rolleyes:

They were urban guerrillas who were distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention specifically (including homemade bombs). The government has an obligation to work to stop any threat like that. This is the protection of the general population from would-be terrorists. You have no reason to assume that they simply "wanted to protest the convention", but you do have the fact that they were distributing those manuals specifically promoting targeting the convention with violence, which you are ignoring.

Oh, and in case you wondered Nacht und Nebel was a Nazi directive in WWII - "The order stated that any underground resistance activities against the Reich carried out in Western Europe would be punished in the most severe ways."
Hitler's purpose in issuing this decree was stated by Keitel in a covering letter, dated 12th December, 1941, to be as follows: Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred to Germany.

Read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hitlerum). You are making a rather obvious ad hitlerum fallacious argument, by implication.

Odd that Liddy used this term for his plan as well... As the 'innocent' families and friends of the 'innocent' kidnap victims wouldn't know their fate they would have been subject to 'efficient and enduring intimidation'. Just as I had stated earlier Shag...

Again, these potential kidnap "victims" were not innocent, except in the legal sense of the word, which is clearly not the definition appropriate to use in this situation or the definition that I was using in post #33.

I said "innocents"; plural. The legal definition does not apply to that, as it is ment on an individual basis and is only applicable in a court room. I was using it in a broad sense. The definition that fits with that term is this one (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent):
harmless in effect or intention
You are equating...

They were innocent?! :rolleyes:

They were urban guerrillas who were distributing manuals for violent guerrilla tactics against the convention specifically (including homemade bombs). The government has an obligation to work to stop any threat like that. This is the protection of the general population from would-be terrorists. You have no reason to assume that they simply "wanted to protest the convention", but you do have the fact that they were distributing those manuals specifically promoting targeting the convention with violence, which you are ignoring.

You have been immersing yourself too much in Liddy's writings Shag ;) just step back a little bit - try reading some Jefferson or Adams...

So, we assume guilt, not innocence in this country? I don't care if it is in any 'legal' context or not... that is immaterial... Are you presumed guilty until proven innocent? Is the government (although in this case it was really Nixon's reelection committee, however the lines are pretty fuzzy, since it was filled with government employees) allowed to preemptively take action against a group of people who haven't broken any laws?

We are abandoning the whole freedom of speech thing, right? Not allowing people to distribute whatever literature they want, even if it incites violence (odd, you stood with me on this when we were going down the whole freedom of speech thing before - why have you changed your mind?) You know, that is sort of what the whole first amendment is about. To allow people to freely speak about anything, including overthrowing the government. It was purposefully set up that way by men who overthrew a government. That right is very fundamental, and was very important to the founding fathers.

Before I delve into this again- I really do need to know shag, is it OK for members of the government or a political party to take highly illegal action against american citizens because they are practicing their first amendment rights? And do we start assuming 'guilt'?

So, we assume guilt, not innocence in this country? I don't care if it is in any 'legal' context or not... that is immaterial...

The whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is only applicable in the courtroom. The "legal" context is not immaterial, it is at the heart of the matter of that idea, and is not applicable in this situation.

Is the government...allowed to preemptively take action against a group of people who haven't broken any laws?

The government has an obligation to protect it's citizens and that justifies certian preemptive actions. It is also only common sense. It is irrational and foolish to expect action to not be taken until you have a "smoking gun". If you have a smoking gun, then you have already been shot.

We are abandoning the whole freedom of speech thing, right? Not allowing people to distribute whatever literature they want, even if it incites violence (odd, you stood with me on this when we were going down the whole freedom of speech thing before - why have you changed your mind?)

I stood with you in saying "free speech" covers inciting violence?! I don't recall that, please show me where I did that.

The right to free speech does not extend to violence, or advocating violence. The SCOTUS has upheld this in a number of case; the current precedent setting cases are Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (1942) for the "fighting words doctrine", and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) for the "Imminent lawless action" idea.

Before I delve into this again- I really do need to know shag, is it OK for members of the government or a political party to take highly illegal action against american citizens because they are practicing their first amendment rights?

There is a loaded question...
The people in question are not practicing any right protected by the first amendment when they are inciting violence and rioting. And actions to stop that are not necessarily "illegal".

OK, just checking on some things with you - I just wanted to make sure where to go with all of this... And yes, inciting riots isn't protected, it is odd, you can advocate overthrowing the government peaceably, but as soon as as any sort of violent revolt starts to creep in then things get murky...

And one final thing - Liddy was acting on behalf of the Committee to Reelect the President, not the US Government. He was a government employee, but the actions we are speaking of were thought out and presented to the men who made up that reelection committee, and in that context, not in the context that involved their official capacities within the government. Otherwise the whole kidnapping, drugs, ship them to Mexico takes on a whole different meaning if it is a government action... It was the action of CREP

OK, just checking on some things with you - I just wanted to make sure where to go with all of this...

And one final thing - Liddy was acting on behalf of the Committee to Reelect, not the US Government. He was a government employee, but the actions we are speaking of were thought out and presented to the men who made up that reelection committee, and in that context, not in the context that involved their official capacities within the government.

Actually, the actions in question were a part of the White House Special Investigations Unit (also called the White House 'Plumbers' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plumbers)) established on July 4, 1971. They was part of the White House and thus, part of the government. While the "Plumbers" did do some work on behalf of the CRP (Liddy was also a member of the CRP), that does not mean that they were not acting in an government capacity as they were a government organization. It was the 'Plumbers' that did the Watergate break-in, and all the other actions in question here. Their actions were in their capacity as a part of the Plumbers, and thus as a part of their official capacity in the government.

Ah, no... - the time article

Finding it difficult on his FBI salary to support his wife and a family that had grown to three (and later to five) children, Liddy joined his father's law firm in 1962. Liddy in 1968 campaigned hard for Richard Nixon's election to the presidency, leading to an appointment as a special assistant in the Treasury Department in 1969. In June 1971, he shifted to the White House and was assigned to a secret group that was to become known as the "plumbers." The group was headed by Egil ("Bud") Krogh, deputy assistant to the President, and David Young, a former assistant to Henry Kissinger. Howard Hunt, a former CIA agent, was Liddy's coworker. Their priority was to discredit Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon papers, a secret study of U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, to the New York Times, had enraged Nixon. In a nighttime raid, they ransacked the files of Dr. Lewis Fielding, a Los Angeles psychiatrist whom Ellsberg had consulted. But they found nothing.

Liddy, who had become the counsel for Nixon's re-election committee as a front for his intelligence assignment, was soon asked to lay out his million-dollar operation. With handsome, 3-ft. by 4-ft. charts provided by the CIA, he readied a Madison Avenue-style presentation for Attorney General John Mitchell.

He was forced to hire his own private counterintelligence team to neutralize his domestic enemies. Nixon hired former FBI, CIA, and policemen and created his own "Internal Security Division" to harass and neutralize his enemies. (this is not from the article - but from a class synopsis (http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm#Watergate) on Watergate at CU)

I had forgot that before the election he had moved over to the re-election committee entirely... but, in either case - Nixon paid the plumbers and the GOP paid CREP

I need to prove that the government was looking at terrorist actions - well, OK, I'll do my best... ;)

So, the fact that the urban guerrillas were missing wouldn't be an act of 'intimidation'? Wouldn't the protesters that remained behind be intimidated by the fact that the leaders of their movement were suddenly, and inexplicably missing?

'Oh my gosh, what happened to Fred, John, Sally, (insert guerrillas' names here), why aren't they here?' 'They just disappeared. They must have been removed or threatened by the government (they would have come to that conclusion - they hated the government, i.e. protesters). We better not protest, or maybe we will disappear too.'

Intimidation at its finest...Sounds exactly like what Cokehead did to Joe the Plumber.

Ah, no... - the time article

Finding it difficult on his FBI salary to support his wife and a family that had grown to three (and later to five) children, Liddy joined his father's law firm in 1962. Liddy in 1968 campaigned hard for Richard Nixon's election to the presidency, leading to an appointment as a special assistant in the Treasury Department in 1969. In June 1971, he shifted to the White House and was assigned to a secret group that was to become known as the "plumbers." The group was headed by Egil ("Bud") Krogh, deputy assistant to the President, and David Young, a former assistant to Henry Kissinger. Howard Hunt, a former CIA agent, was Liddy's coworker. Their priority was to discredit Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon papers, a secret study of U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, to the New York Times, had enraged Nixon. In a nighttime raid, they ransacked the files of Dr. Lewis Fielding, a Los Angeles psychiatrist whom Ellsberg had consulted. But they found nothing.


Liddy, who had become the counsel for Nixon's re-election committee as a front for his intelligence assignment, was soon asked to lay out his million-dollar operation. With handsome, 3-ft. by 4-ft. charts provided by the CIA, he readied a Madison Avenue-style presentation for Attorney General John Mitchell.

I had forgot that before the election he had moved over to the re-election committee entirely... So, fuzzy government - quazi I guess...

I need to prove that the government was looking at terrorist actions - well, OK, I'll do my best... ;)

Where are you getting that he moved over the the re-election committee entirely? Everything I can find suggests a dual role, as part of the Plumbers and as council to the CRP. From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy#White_House_years):
In 1971, after serving in several positions in the Nixon administration, Liddy was moved to Nixon's 1972 campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President...in order to extend the scope and reach of the White House "Plumbers" unit, which had been created in response to various damaging leaks of information to the press.

I can't find anything that contradicts that...

Shag, fox has definitely outfoxed you. By responding to her off topic red herring, you have allowed her to steer you away from Ayers.

Just a reminder.

Nope - that is on the other thread - actually this thread probably should have been about some sort of socialism - but Calabrio in posts #3, 5 and 7 started to morph the post over to this...

Where are you getting that he moved over the the re-election committee entirely? Everything I can find suggests a dual role, as part of the Plumbers and as council to the CRP. From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy#White_House_years):
In 1971, after serving in several positions in the Nixon administration, Liddy was moved to Nixon's 1972 campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President...in order to extend the scope and reach of the White House "Plumbers" unit, which had been created in response to various damaging leaks of information to the press.

I can't find anything that contradicts that...

They was part of the White House and thus, part of the government.


Well, actually I believe the 'plumbers' were paid by Nixon himself, and weren't ever a government paid entity (http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm#Watergate).
They might have worked out of the white house, but they weren't paid by the government, or officially part of the government...

The problem Nixon now faced was that he couldn't fund these illegal activities using government money. If he used government money, Congress and the press might find out about this criminal conspiracy against innocent Americans. Nixon was thus forced to raise the money to fund his Internal Security Division (the Plumbers) illegally. Between 1970 and 1972, President Nixon raised over $60 million dollars from large corporations by asking them to pass huge amounts of money under-the-table in return for government favors.

And i think during the re-election time frame Nixon moved them over to the re-election committee so he didn't have to pay them and the GOP could pay them..

And sorry about making you late to class;)

Oh, and as so far a definitions go - why are we using yours - which is from ?????

Shouldn't we use the US Government's (DOD) definition? Since this is about the United States?

Well, actually I believe the 'plumbers' were paid by Nixon himself, and weren't ever a government paid entity (http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/water.htm#Watergate).
They might have worked out of the white house, but they weren't paid by the government, or officially part of the government...

The problem Nixon now faced was that he couldn't fund these illegal activities using government money. If he used government money, Congress and the press might find out about this criminal conspiracy against innocent Americans. Nixon was thus forced to raise the money to fund his Internal Security Division (the Plumbers) illegally. Between 1970 and 1972, President Nixon raised over $60 million dollars from large corporations by asking them to pass huge amounts of money under-the-table in return for government favors.

And i think during the re-election time frame Nixon moved them over to the re-election committee so he didn't have to pay them and the GOP could pay them..

And sorry about making you late to class;)

Pay is one thing, authority derived from the executive branch is another. Where they part of the government or not? They don't necessarily need to be funded by the government to be a part of the government (acting with the authority of the government).

Also, I am not yet sold that the Plumbers became a part of the CRP. They both had Liddy (and maybe a few others) who were part of both, it seems, but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily the same organization.

Interesting questions, though.:)

Oh, and as so far a definitions go - why are we using yours - which is from ?????

Shouldn't we use the US Government's (DOD) definition? Since this is about the United States?

I really don't see much of a difference between the two, but if you wanna go with the DOD, I am not gonna argue it. Do you have a link to that definition?

It is on the DOD site (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/)...

Exact link (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/05453.html)...

Terrorist
(DOD) An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. See also terrorism.

You guys sure do spend a lot of time arguing semantics. :confused:

Long story short: Liddy took part in plots to undermine the democratic process using illegal and unethical methods. If it weren't for some bungling burglers and an observant security guard throwing a monkey wrench into his Plumbers' plans, who knows how far he might have gone? He's never expressed having any regrets for what he did and even considered himself a "good soldier". He's a scumbag, plain and simple. F*ck him. He tried to throw an election. And I believe one could argue that that made him a much bigger threat to our nation than some group of morons planting pipe bombs.

But this is all irrelevant because no one believes McCain approves of what Liddy did. McCain may share Liddy's political views on taxes, guns, whatever. They may be great friends. But no one is suggesting that McCain thinks it's A-OK for the president to have political enemies spied on, personally destroyed, let alone killed.

But when it comes to Obama and Ayers, you automatically assume that Obama must not only accept every last one of Ayers' political views and philosophies, right down to his love of "small-c communism", but that he fully supports them! I and the majority of Americans, reject that notion as absurd. He's given absolutely no indication of sharing any of Ayers' "radical" views whatsoever. On the contrary, he showed himself to be a steady, thoughtful and pragmatic candidate. The fact that he can "associate" himself with those considered on "the fringe" without being corrupted by them is something to be praised, not condemned. Obama has given no indication that he has been corrupted by his past association with Ayers. None. Those that fear that he has must be suffering from what Bryan calls "reflection". :D

I realize this probably belongs in the other thread, but I wanted to address this distracting argument over Liddy and "terrorist" and got carried away.

By the way Shag, I've talked to the people at Wikipedia and you are now banned from the site due to excessive linking. :D

I am sorry about the semantics - but, I have been pounded so much on rules that aren't stated anywhere I decided to get them out of the way here... sorry again...

Thank you Marcus - On the other post and here I have stated over and over again I don't believe that McCain follows or condones Liddy's whole weird philosophy and actions. But somehow the guys here can't see the 'in your face' comparison when they link Obama and Ayers.

But, because of some weird rule of debate I am not allowed to use comparison to argue my point.

Maybe someone could really explain this to me.

And it is just fun to make sure that Liddy get his due as a domestic terrorist... ;)

But, because of some weird rule of debate I am not allowed to use comparison to argue my point.

Maybe someone could really explain this to me.
There's nothing else to explain.
Your "comparison" has been challenged.

And it is just fun to make sure that Liddy get his due as a domestic terrorist... ;)
Sad, because he's not a terrorist.
If you'd said he was thuggish, then you'd have had a stronger point. But a thug working for the government is vastly different than a radical leftist, American hating terrorist who actively KILLS AND MAIMS innocent people.

Dodge and weave all night, but you haven't been able to tell me any buildings blown up, people killed or maimed by nail bombs associated with Liddy.

However, the same can't be said for MARXIST TERRORIST Bill Ayers. There's no innocent blood on Liddy's hands. And, for his crimes, Liddy served his time. Ayers is the unrepentant terrorist.

And worse yet, short of the violence, he and Obama appear to share the same political goals. But compared to nail and pipe bombs, Obama is just a more effective way for Ayres to implementing that change.

You'll have a hard time naming anybody KILLED OR MAIMED by Ayers other than the three Weathermen who died in the Greenwich explosion. As for buildings "blown up", that's a stretch. They usually set their bombs off in bathrooms or unattended places in the very early morning. See this Weather Underground timeline (http://www.americanissuesproject.org/pdf/WeatherUndergroundTimelineOfEvents.pdf) (PDF) with contemporary newspaper accounts. Damage was limited. No one was ever hurt. Furthermore, they usually called with warnings before. Blowing up a bathroom at 4 AM is a far cry from "blowing up" the Capital building or the Pentagon.

Does this excuse Ayers or the WU? Hell no. It's very possible that people could have been maimed or killed if the Greenwich Village thing hadn't happened, because they were supposedly preparing to bomb a dance at Fort Dix. But the fact remains that no one was killed. Ayers was a terrorist by every definition. But quit with the hyperbolic revisionism about mass devastation and bloodshed.

--------------------------------------------

Also, how about naming these "radical agenda" you believe Obama shares with Ayers? What do you base these accusations on other than the fact that they know each other?

I have been pounded so much You keep bringing this up. Can we leave sexual fantasies out of this discussion? ;)

Calabrio – so I can use comparison – right? Is that OK??? As a general rule here….

And, there are men being held in Gantanamo as terrorists who haven’t committed an act of violence, they just planned terrorist acts – so, the US Government views terrorism as ”An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives.

The act of threatening to commit violence is a terrorist act –

And Liddy isn’t repentant either… Of his time spent in jail… he said he was a ‘prisoner of war’ (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column), and when asked… Does he regret burgling the offices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and setting in chain the resignation of a President? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/g-gordon-liddy-voice-of-unreason-534135.html)
His reply was… "No."

And foss – yes, it is true, I was trying to sneak in a sexual fantasy involving Liddy, Ayers, a couple of ex plumbers and, well, it’s complicated :) I'll try to keep those to myself, really.... ;)

And, there are men being held in Gantanamo as terrorists who haven’t committed an act of violence, they just planned terrorist acts – so, the US Government views terrorism as ”An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives.

the better analogy is a POW. Most (if not all) of these people are being held so as to be more humane in are conducting of the war on terror. If we don't take prisoners on the battlefield, then the only other logical course it to kill any enemy combatant. You cannot let them go and keep fighting you later on.

Also, people who are not American Citizens and working against the U.S. government are not covered under the U.S. constitution as far as rights are concerned. That factor should be considered as well...

Calabrio – so I can use comparison – right? Is that OK??? As a general rule here….
Spin...spin.... dodge....deflect.... but never actually respond to the challenge..... It's really getting boring.

And, there are men being held in Gantanamo as terrorists who haven’t committed an act of violence
As noted, they are enemy combatants.
Not that we've resovled that, let's move on to your next point.

And Liddy isn’t repentant either…
No he's not. But I've addressed this already.
You're not arguing that he was a thug, you're trying to say he was a terrorist. He simply wasn't. No definition of "terrorism" even applies. You can ignore this all you'd like, but that's the reality.

HOWEVER-
Bill Ayers IS a an unrepentant terrorist. He has been involved in domestic terrorism and funded domestic terrorism. He readily acknowledges this. Not only is he not repentant, he's proud of it, and to this day argues that he was in the right.... this part of the story makes Obama look bad by association.

The real problem is that Obama and he are in ideological agreement with each other. Obama appears to agree with Ayers on everything BUT building high explosive nail bombs to be used to maim and kill innocent civilians.

You keep dancing around this, distracting.

MORE IMPORTANTLY- Obama was elected. Since the campaign is over, it's irrelevant to even discuss McCain's loose associations. Despite the fact that McCain's association with Liddy isn't even similar to that of Obama and Ayers. Or the fact that Liddy's actions or feelings for this country and the constitution have nothing in common with Ayers.

The only relevant issue now is that the President-elect is in ideological lock step with a high profile, subversive, domestic terrorist, Marxist radical. One who hasn't condemned violence as a tool for radicals, but has simply found that brainwashing kids in the education system to be a far more effective way to do it.

How the hell did we get off on Gitmo?

But since we're here, it should be noted that a great many of the prisoners weren't caught on the "battlefield". They were captured and turned in by third parties in exchange for rewards. Many were never charged with anything and were released. "Hey, sorry buddy for three years of living hell, hanging you from the ceiling from chains, and all that. We thought you might be a bad guy because this dude said you were after we paid him $5000. Have a nice day."

There's a circular logic when it comes to these prisoners:
"They must be terrorists because they're in Gitmo."
"They're in Gitmo because they're terrorists."

And considering the number of them who have tried to commit suicide, I think some might have to take issue with the "more humane than killing them on the spot" argument.

I guess I'll just keep posting for the hell of it. You guys go on and discuss this without me.

How the hell did we get off on Gitmo?
Because Fox can't stay on topic. She's dancing around, avoiding any of the challenges presented to her, aware of just how weak and dishonest her little technique is.

...If you want to discuss Gitmo... start another thread.

But since we're here, it should be noted that a great many of the prisoners weren't caught on the "battlefield". They were captured and turned in by third parties in exchange for rewards. Many were never charged with anything and were released. "Hey, sorry buddy for three years of living hell, hanging you from the ceiling from chains, and all that. We thought you might be a bad guy because this dude said you were after we paid him $5000. Have a nice day."

Unless they are American Citizens, they are not covered by the procedural rights in the Constitution and don't need to be charged with anything.

And considering the number of them who have tried to commit suicide, I think some might have to take issue with the "more humane than killing them on the spot" argument.

These are people willing to die for their cause and are aimmed at basically psychological warfare. They have been trained to cause chaos and negative PR for the enemy in the event they are captured. Commiting suicide is a real good way to do that.

You'll have a hard time naming anybody KILLED OR MAIMED by Ayers other than the three Weathermen who died in the Greenwich explosion. As for buildings "blown up", that's a stretch. They usually set their bombs off in bathrooms or unattended places in the very early morning. See this Weather Underground timeline (http://www.americanissuesproject.org/pdf/WeatherUndergroundTimelineOfEvents.pdf) (PDF) with contemporary newspaper accounts. Damage was limited. No one was ever hurt. Furthermore, they usually called with warnings before. Blowing up a bathroom at 4 AM is a far cry from "blowing up" the Capital building or the Pentagon.



Don't expect Calabrio to acknowledge his lies, he's been called on this before and yet he continues this lie. Remember the forum rules dictated by the RWWs on this board, "We make the rules and they only apply to you."
:rolleyes:

Don't expect Calabrio to acknowledge his lies, he's been called on this before and yet he continues this lie. Remember the forum rules dictated by the RWWs on this board, "We make the rules and they only apply to you."
:rolleyes:

You're being a miserable little troll.
Are you seriously challenging this? Because, frankly, I'm not interested in just busy work by a bunch of dishonest, deceptive liberals like yourself.

We can either list all of the people and targets that the Weather Underground attacked with moltov cocktails, explosives and the likes.

We can talk about the law enforcement officers that they assaulted.

Or we can even talk about the various brainwashed radicals that were either shot or blew themselves up while manufacturing explosives in the basement of a residential neighborhood.

This is what you called Bill Ayers in a previous post on this thread:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=448169&postcount=53

a radical leftist, American hating terrorist who actively KILLS AND MAIMS innocent people.

You've stated the same in other threads.

If you can back up that statement, that Bill Ayers personally actively kills and maims innocent people, or even has in the past (I'm giving you rope here), PLEASE provide the proof.

Oh, I know, you're going to claim "that's not who I was talking about" and try to weasle out of it, because you will NOT be able to back that accusation up.

And NOTE to Shag, let it be shown, ONCE AGAIN, WHO was the first to throw personal attacks here.

We can either list all of the people and targets that the Weather Underground attacked with moltov cocktails, explosives and the likes.

We can talk about the law enforcement officers that they assaulted.

Or we can even talk about the various brainwashed radicals that were either shot or blew themselves up while manufacturing explosives in the basement of a residential neighborhood.

I'm not looking for those hurt by the Weather Underground, I'm looking for those innocents who died at Ayer's own hand.

I'm not looking for those who were assaulted, I'm looking for those innocents who died at Ayer's own hand.

I'm not looking for those "radicals" who killed themselves, I'm looking for those innocents who died at Ayer's own hand.

It appears you are already attempting to pave yourself a narrow path to weasle out of your statement.

Obama appears to agree with Ayers on everything BUT building high explosive nail bombs to be used to maim and kill innocent civilians.

Wow - everything - very interesting... the blanket assumptions apply to everyone - huh?

You keep dancing around this, distracting.

Most people like my dancing...;)

Because, frankly, I'm not interested in just busy work by a bunch of dishonest, deceptive liberals like yourself.

Calabrio - what ever you use for stress release - how about getting some? Your side lost - at least you still hold filibuster and 2 years really isn't that far away... Heck, if you need some suggestions for relieving tension - just pm me - I have lots of ideas...;) As you said, you know, this doesn't really even matter. I have been debating Liddy because he is a paranoid nut case and he is a fascinating study - I don't really care about the outcome - just wandering about here in the debate. For instance, I didn't realize he doesn't have very good use of his left(?) hand because of all the times he has burnt it (holding a lighter to it until the flesh is smoking and peeling away) showing people how tough he is... truly an interesting study.

We can talk about the law enforcement officers that they assaulted.

Now, not as something I agree or disagree with, Liddy did broadcast on his radio show how to correctly shoot to kill an ATF officer.

Shag, since obviously this has gone beyond friendly fire - we can just finish this off - site, probably healthier for Calabrio's blood pressure rate...:) Or I can stay here if Calabrio promises not to self destruct... I wouldn't want to maim or kill innocent people... ;)

And now for what everyone has been waiting for - visual proof of how much of a terrorist Liddy is - wow - have you ever seen a more ugly bike - he builds these things and then sells them like for 25 g's or so...

Visual terrorism at its worst... ;) http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb45/vwheeler99/bike.jpg

Now, not as something I agree or disagree with, Liddy did broadcast on his radio show how to correctly shoot to kill an ATF officer.

...if he busts in on you armed.

You left that part out, as well as the context (Ruby Ridge and Waco).

Classic quote mining. In fact, you didn't even quote him.

Liddy's quote - from his talk show... 1994
“Go for a head shot. They're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.”

It could have be in regards to WACO - although WACO occurred a year earlier...

Liddy has claimed, in I believe 2004, to have said that while talking about the ATF entering your home illegally, but, I have never seen the entire quote - I would love to - have you seen it Foss?

And, as I said, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with that particular statement, since I don't know the whole story behind the allegation.

It appears you are already attempting to pave yourself a narrow path to weasle out of your statement.

And it looks like you've framed the question in such a dishonest way that there is little point in answer it.

Bill Ayers was a radical who financed and help plan terrorist operations.

Let me ask you this, is it fair to call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or to blame him for the 911 attacks? Can you tell me a specific act of terrorism that he actually perpetrated himself?

No. He provided guidance, planning, and money.
Same as Bill Ayers.
He found other misguided, brainwashed, ideological fools to blow themselves up or get sent to prison...

Liddy's quote - from his talk show... 1994
“Go for a head shot. They're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.”

... what kind of fascists would say that??
Obviously, one wouldn't. But intellectual honesty or candor isn't something you're inclined to exhibit in public debate, is it?

Calabrio - what ever you use for stress release - how about getting some? Your side lost - at least you still hold filibuster and 2 years really isn't that far away...
I don't have a "side." I don't play for a baseball team.
I don't have any affection for either team. I don't even like the "game" you refer to.

I have been debating Liddy because he is a paranoid nut case and he is a fascinating study
I won't deny that you might find him interesting, but you clearly brought Liddy up as a means of distracting from the Obama/Ayers associations. There's no need for me to repeat and explain it again.


And Liddy has a horrible history of marketing crappy stuff. Be it his calender, that bike... we have found agreement on that point.

But, I do like how you liked my Liddy joke Foss (I hope you didn't hurt your computer with the spit take :p ) I was rather shocked myself when I was looking at Liddy facts and there was all this stuff about Liddy being a fascist.. it is pretty funny. I hope you enjoyed the 'mirth'. The world can use lots of mirth...
... what kind of fascists would say that??
Obviously, one wouldn't. But intellectual honesty or candor isn't something you're inclined to exhibit in public debate, is it?
The fascist thing was a joke... sorry... :) I thought it was funny that there was all this stuff out there on the web about him being a fascist... ;)

And, although Liddy is distracting that isn't why I brought him up. Originally I brought him up because I believe there are close correlations regarding the whole point of using Ayers as a reason to question Obama's character. I don't think you should use Ayers as a barometer of Obama's character, because I would never use McCain's relationship to Liddy as a reason to question McCains's character. But, I know your answer to that. So, let's just leave it at you don't feel they are an equal comparison, and let's keep your blood pressure below 150 - OK?:)

The fascist thing was a joke... sorry... :) I thought it was funny that there was all this stuff out there on the web about him being a fascist... ;)

I don't think you were joking about that. And had it not been effectively challenged, I think you'd be very comfortable knowing that other people read it and believed it. In fact, that was clearly your intention.

The same applies for the statements you made that presented Liddy as a Nazi supporter.

Those weren't jokes. You can back away from the arguments now because they've been thoroughly demonstrated to be absolute rubbish in this thread. But they weren't jokes. They were at the foundation of your argument and defense of Obama and his association with Ayers.

..and don't worry about my blood pressure. I'm a healthy guy. And thoughtful honest political debate and discussion IS a distraction/release for me.
Unfortunately, I'm not finding any thoughtful or honest in the public forum here... just knee-jerk responses and skilled spin.

Well, at least the spin is skilled... One hates to be serviced by an unskilled spin artist...;)

i will try to be a more worthy opponent... I promise :)

And the real foundation in my argument regarding Ayers is that Liddy is a good comparable. I was forced to make him a terrorist (which I think I was doing an OK job on - and if left to finish, I can probably at least make it a mexican stand off...), to more justify the 'equalness' of the comparable. It was at that point that it became more of a study of the man, and connecting the dots to lead to that conclusion.

Which is scarier - the certifiable nut case, or the man who is intelligent enough to work the system? That is a really interesting question...

Liddy's quote - from his talk show... 1994
“Go for a head shot. They're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches.”

It could have be in regards to WACO - although WACO occurred a year earlier...

Liddy has claimed, in I believe 2004, to have said that while talking about the ATF entering your home illegally, but, I have never seen the entire quote - I would love to - have you seen it Foss?

And, as I said, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with that particular statement, since I don't know the whole story behind the allegation.Yes I have seen it. And you can too.

Google is your friend.

Which is scarier - the certifiable nut case, or the man who is intelligent enough to work the system? That is a really interesting question...

I don't think intelligence is at issue here. Liddy isn't a stupid man, nor would I argue that Ayers is either.

The question is, which is scarier.
This is an easy question.

Ayers is.

Liddy comes right at you. and tells you what he thinks. You know what he supports, and he'll tell you in a direct way.

Ayers works in the shadows through deception and deceit. He'll do anything to advance his cause even if it means killing or maiming totally innocent people. He doesn't even want you to know his cause because he's aware that most people will reject it.

In fact, he's not even interested in convincing someone like me the value of his philosophy. No, he knows of an even better and more effective route. He'll brainwash our kids. I know better, but a kid doesn't. He'll get them while their still impressionable and shape their world view through the schools.

There's no doubt. Ayers is infinitely more scary that Liddy ever was.

I don't think intelligence is at issue here. Liddy isn't a stupid man, nor would I argue that Ayers is either.

The question is, which is scarier.
This is an easy question.

Ayers is.

Liddy comes right at you. and tells you what he thinks. You know what he supports, and he'll tell you in a direct way.

Ayers works in the shadows through deception and deceit. He'll do anything to advance his cause even if it means killing or maiming totally innocent people. He doesn't even want you to know his cause because he's aware that most people will reject it.

In fact, he's not even interested in convincing someone like me the value of his philosophy. No, he knows of an even better and more effective route. He'll brainwash our kids. I know better, but a kid doesn't. He'll get them while their still impressionable and shape their world view through the schools.

There's no doubt. Ayers is infinitely more scary that Liddy ever was.

EXCELLENT POINT!

I don't think intelligence is at issue here. Liddy isn't a stupid man, nor would I argue that Ayers is either.

The question is, which is scarier.
This is an easy question.

Ayers is.

Liddy comes right at you. and tells you what he thinks. You know what he supports, and he'll tell you in a direct way.

Ayers works in the shadows through deception and deceit. He'll do anything to advance his cause even if it means killing or maiming totally innocent people. He doesn't even want you to know his cause because he's aware that most people will reject it.

In fact, he's not even interested in convincing someone like me the value of his philosophy. No, he knows of an even better and more effective route. He'll brainwash our kids. I know better, but a kid doesn't. He'll get them while their still impressionable and shape their world view through the schools.

There's no doubt. Ayers is infinitely more scary that Liddy ever was.Who the hell did Ayers "maim or kill" either directly or indirectly? Answer the goddamned question!

Who the hell did Ayers "maim or kill" either directly or indirectly? Answer the goddamned question!
Cut out the language, jerkoff. And do your own research, or make your point if you're being rhetorical.

Cut out the language, jerkoff. And do your own research, or make your point if you're being rhetorical.I HAVE done the research dipsh!t. If you're gonna make a case that Ayers has "maimed and killed innocent people", it's your burden of proof not mine.

I HAVE done the research dipsh!t. If you're gonna make a case that Ayers has "maimed and killed innocent people", it's your burden of proof not mine.
Who are you talking to? I didn't make that claim. Who claimed that he "maimed and killed innocent people? At least know who you're addressing before you attempt to be clever.

Dipsh!t, indeed.

Who the hell did Ayers "maim or kill" either directly or indirectly? Answer the goddamned question!

I'm reluctant to respond to this because I simply can't believe that you don't know. That you're issue this challenge simply to waste my time.

Ayers was a founder of the Weather Underground. Just for the sake of clarity, I'm going to refer to everything as Weather Underground. The groups name evolved over the years, but I'm not going to bother track it in this little synopsis of the pain they caused. Regardless the name, it was a radical and MILITANT leftist group in the late 1960s and 1970s that engaged in a campaign of terror, bombings, and violent riots.

During the "Days of Rage" riots, 28 policemen were injured by the mob and 6 brainwashed protesters were shot by the police.

When the Weather Underground detonated a pipe bomb at the San Fransisco Police Department in 1970, Sgt. Brian McDonnell was killed. Officer Robert Fogarty was severely wounds and was left partially blind.

They through moltov cocktails at the home of Judge Murtagh while his entire family was home. They also fire bombed police cars and military recruiting stations. Fortunately, no one was injured, but the intention was to burn this judges family to death in their home.

They bombed the National Guard Association building.
They also planted a bomb at the San Fransisco Hall of Justice but it failed to go off.
They bombed the Presidio.
A traffic court building in Queens was bombed.
The Harvard Center for International Affairs is bombed.
The U.S. Capitol was bombed.
They bombed the California Office of Corrections.
They bombed the NY Department of Corrections.
The Weathermen bombed 103rd Police Precinct in New York
They bombed the ITT headquarter in the NY and in Italy.
They bombed the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare in San Fransisco.
The Weather Underground bombed the office of the California Attorney General.
They bombed a company associated with Rockefeller Corporation.
They bombed a bank in New York.
They bombed the office of the Kennecott Corporation
The bombed the headquarters of Gulf Oil.
They bombed the State Department.
They exploded a bomb inside the Pentagon.

After the Weather Underground declared a "State of War" with the American government they were actively preparing to bomb a non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. They wanted to "deliver the most horrific hit that the United States government had ever suffered on its territory." That was a quote from them. They were preparing for mass murder.

But while they were putting the finishing touches on the bomb, there was a short circuit. These terrorist were building and stock piling high powered explosives in the basement of their townhouse in a residential neighborhood. There were enough explosives in that basement to blow up the both sides of the street, according to the FBI. Among the things they found were 60 sticks of dynamite, a live military antitank shell, blasting caps and several large metal pipes packed solid with explosives.

Three more people were killed in the explosion. Theodore Gold, Terry Robins, and Diana Outin. Of course, these radicals didn't actually report the accident or even tell law enforcement that there was anyone still in the building after the explosion. The police only discovered the identity of Outin when they found part of her finger buried in the rubble and it matched a finger print they had on file.

After this, the government, the FBI, and even the President became completely aware of just how dangerous these people were and that they were preparing to engage in a campaign of mass murder and random killing. It was then that guys like Ayers and the rest of the leadership went deep into hiding.

Law enforcement soon found ANOTHER bomb making factory in Chicago.
And they found another bomb making factory in San Fransisco.

After they nearly blew up the city block in Greenwich and made it to the top of the FBIs most wanted list, they did make an effort to not kill any longer. Not on moral grounds, but because they it was hurting their cause and the leaders of the movement, like Ayers, couldn't handle the intense heat from law enforcement.

So, by my count, I have 39 people here who were injured or killed because of the actions of the Weather Underground during a relatively short period of time. There's also one family who they attempt to burn alive in their home. And there were plans in place to engage in a mass murder at Fort Dix. Thankfully, there was an accident and the bomb detonated in the basement, three people were almost vaporized by the blast.... fortunately all of the ordinance didn't explode or scores of innocent people would have been killed.

And this one I take personally-
On October 20, 1981, members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed a Brinks armored truck and stole over $1,000,000. This was extremely violent attack was done at the Nanuet Mall, right down the street from where I grew up.

When the police engaged the robbers a second shoot out took place. Three good men were killed that day. Officers Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.

Now, I am aware that Ayers is not associated with the Brinks robbery. I included that in the story because of it's relevance. Obama was a student at Columbia University at the time of this. Columbia University is just a few miles away from this blood bath associated with the Weather Underground. So the violence associated with Ayers' group wasn't just limited to when he was a nine years old kid.

I hope that helps answer your question.

I hope that helps answer your question.I doubt it. I'm convinced Marcus was just trolling. :rolleyes:

And it looks like you've framed the question in such a dishonest way that there is little point in answer it.

No more dishonest than the statement you made. Already you're backpedaling.....

Bill Ayers was a radical who financed and help plan terrorist operations.



I never disputed your claim that Ayers was a terrorist.

I never disputed your claim that Ayers was a terrorist.
Glad we agree.
Obama worked with and maintained a long term relationship with a domestic terrorist. One who supported the mass murder of innocent Americans.

Now convince the rest of your knee-jerk liberal buddies.