• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Ayers Defends Weather Underground Bombings

head of joaquin said:
The ones gun nuts have traditionally fought against: the first, the fourth, the fifth, the eigth. It's uncanny how the NRA and boomstrikelovers have always taken the said of illegal government action against unions, civil rights advocates, environmental activists, and anti-war protestors.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I would fight for them all.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
For which amendments would you fight to the death?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

What good is freedom when you're dead? :roll:

But you go ahead and fight to the death.... :popcorn2:

Just keep in mind they probably don't have guns in heaven. lol
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Now I want you to pay attention here Moot...

"The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq.

Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies:

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.

Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.

This, in fact, could very well be another case of "fake but accurate", where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything."

Downing Street Memos are Fake?

Hmmmm....Bill Burkett....Now where have we heard that name.....?

"Burkett's claims about the origins of the documents have since changed several times. He admitted to lying to CBS about the origin of the memos when he said he got them from fellow guardsman George Conn,[6] then claiming that he received the Killian documents from a woman calling herself "Lucy Ramirez." To date, she has not been identified. The documents, purported to have been typed in the early seventies, are widely reported to have almost certainly been produced with a computer using Microsoft Word on default settings.[7] Burkett claims that he burned the originals after faxing copies of the documents to CBS.[8]
When asked about Burkett's role in the controversy, David Van Os, Burkett's lawyer, responded with the hypothetical that someone may have reconstructed documents that the preparer believed existed in 1972 or 1973.[9]

Bill Burkett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:lamo Good grief! Give me a break...You people want something so to be true that you make **** up to support your stupid claims....Do us all a favor, and stick to the topic will ya?
Click to expand...

J-mac, mac, mac,.....the DSM weren't classified documents, they were notes taken at a meeting in 2002 and the authenticity of the memo's content was verified by MI6 and the UK Foreign Office as "genuine" and no one that attended the meeting has denied the memo's content...not Tony Blair, not Jack Straw, not Richard Manning, not Richard Dearborn....NO ONE!!! So who are we to believe... MI6 and UK Foreign Office and several news sources....or a rightwing blogger????

A RIGHTWING BLOGGER!!!! :lamo

Ayers...schmayres ...who cares....certainly not the the OP who hasn't shown his face since his first post. So unless you have some new revelations about Ayres.....who cares what we discuss at this point? Certainly not me...or you apparently, j-mac.

Now uh....about those WMDs and the rightys still living in denial....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...r-underground-bombings-13.html#post1061787959

It really is sad how many are still living in denial about Iraq's WMDs and can't admit they were duped into an illegal and senseless war. Sad? More like pathetic.
 
:screwy
Moot said:
J-mac, mac, mac,.....the DSM weren't classified documents, they were notes taken at a meeting in 2002 and the authenticity of the memo's content was verified by MI6 and the UK Foreign Office as "genuine" and no one that attended the meeting has denied the memo's content...not Tony Blair, not Jack Straw, not Richard Manning, not Richard Dearborn....NO ONE!!! So who are we to believe... MI6 and UK Foreign Office and several news sources....or a rightwing blogger????

A RIGHTWING BLOGGER!!!! :lamo

Ayers...schmayres ...who cares....certainly not the the OP who hasn't shown his face since his first post. So unless you have some new revelations about Ayres.....who cares what we discuss at this point? Certainly not me...or you apparently, j-mac.

Now uh....about those WMDs and the rightys still living in denial....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...r-underground-bombings-13.html#post1061787959

It really is sad how many are still living in denial about Iraq's WMDs and can't admit they were duped into an illegal and senseless war. Sad? More like pathetic.
Click to expand...

So you think that because someone won't respond to your silly made up, so called 'evidence' of a meeting that proves the meeting happened? :screwy I don't care if it is a blogger who's opinion is dead right on this, or some source that has to clear your stupid hurdle of acceptance. The fact remains that the documents were made up, and thus loose their credibility.

Now, if you want me to accept your foolish standard of proof then you in turn must accept those that believe that WMD were shuttled out of the country in convoys, and flights with Russian help days before the invasion of Iraq. There is much more credible evidence of that, than there is some "retyped" host of lies, fairytale that you on the liberal left made up to smear people you hate. So, short of that cry me a river....:boohoo:

Now on to the topic of the thread, Ayres....He is human trash. But once again, you on the liberal progressive left show exactly who you side with....Just like Columbia University giving a professorship to Katherine Bodine.....or what ever her name is.....So keep showing your asses libs....It makes it easy to see who the enemies of freedom are. :thumbs:
 
Moot said:
What good is freedom when you're dead? :roll:

But you go ahead and fight to the death.... :popcorn2:

Just keep in mind they probably don't have guns in heaven. lol
Click to expand...

Quite all right. Although I have carried firearms professionally, I don't own one. Unless some are willing to die for freedom, no one gets to be free.:cool:
 
j-mac said:
:screwy

So you think that because someone won't respond to your silly made up, so called 'evidence' of a meeting that proves the meeting happened? :screwy I don't care if it is a blogger who's opinion is dead right on this, or some source that has to clear your stupid hurdle of acceptance. The fact remains that the documents were made up, and thus loose their credibility.
Click to expand...
But you did respond, and now you're trying to blame me for your failure to prove the memo was fake or that Iraq had WMDs. Blaming others for their own failures seems to be a common trait with conservatives. So how very typical of you, j-mac.

Now, if you want me to accept your foolish standard of proof then you in turn must accept those that believe that WMD were shuttled out of the country in convoys, and flights with Russian help days before the invasion of Iraq. There is much more credible evidence of that, than there is some "retyped" host of lies, fairytale that you on the liberal left made up to smear people you hate. So, short of that cry me a river....:boohoo:
Click to expand...
Either you can prove Iraq had WMDs or you can't...and we all know you can't because there weren't any. So who do you think you're fooling with your false accusations, fallacious lies, drama queen hysterics and infantile temper tantrums? Certainly not me, so it must be you. Why are you still playing dumb instead of admitting the truth? Do you have a guilty conscience or are you just too embarrassed to admit that you were duped into believing a lie that cost millions of innocent people their lives and has nearly bankrupted your own country? You're still living in denial, so why should anyone believe a word you say?

Now on to the topic of the thread, Ayres....He is human trash. But once again, you on the liberal progressive left show exactly who you side with....Just like Columbia University giving a professorship to Katherine Bodine.....or what ever her name is.....So keep showing your asses libs....It makes it easy to see who the enemies of freedom are. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
Yes the topic, you don't have a lot of room to talk about Ayres or libs when filth like La Pierre can defend mass murder and killing innocent children and conservatives side with that lying P.O.S., now do you?
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
I was too smart to take part in that useless un-winnable and immoral war. Sorry you weren't
LBJ was just as culpable as was Nixon...Dicky just dropped about 1000 times more bombs He purposely starved and killed many, many more civilians so it is relatively a greater immorality.
Nixon also prolonged the conflict for five long years . The peace agreements had been reached in 1968 before the election when Nixon spoke to the ambassadors secretly telling them he would get them a better deal than LBJ would, so the agreements broke down and the war went on for another FIVE years. Nixon could not have been elected if the agreement held. He did all this to further his own personal political career. This was all revealed recently by the LBJ library.
Do you know anyone killed in Vietnam between 1968 and 1972?
I do.
We can thank tricky Dicky and his immoral, egocentric political ambition for anyone killed there in those five years.
Do you still wish to defend that immoral, treasonous scum Nixon clownboy?

BBC News - The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'
Click to expand...

WTF?

How the **** can you blame Nixon when Kennedy and LBJ kept the war alive?

LBJ was a racist warmongering sociopath that was obsessed with his own power.... Kennedy was all for Vietnam and he was willing to do whatever it took to defeat North Vietnam - not to mention was obsessed with defeating communism/socialism in general - even to the point of bizarre and quip tactics, including a terrorist attack on the US killing thousands while blaming Castro (Operation Northwoods).

Democrats have the attention span of PI... The SDS and Weather Underground prove my assertion quite clearly considering they're all proud card-carrying democrats.

How ****ing dare you even attempt to blame Nixon.

You 70's communists blame Nixon for everything - read a ****ing book!
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Quite all right. Although I have carried firearms professionally, I don't own one. Unless some are willing to die for freedom, no one gets to be free.:cool:
Click to expand...
Those who beat the drum of freedom are the ones dying to take it away.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's a lie.:cool:
Click to expand...


The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty. - Abraham Lincoln

dancing.gif
 
Moot said:
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty. - Abraham Lincoln

dancing.gif
Click to expand...

You certainly have the right to your own unique definition of "liberty" but if it's shared by no one else you'll have a hard time discussing it.:cool:
 
"At least a dozen former members of domestic terrorist organizations are college professors, a guest blog on The Other McCain reports.

The report comes on the heels of news that Kathy Boudin, the former American terrorist, is now a professor at Columbia and NYU. Boudin was convicted in a robbery that left two police officers dead in 1981.

Apparently, she is not the only former domestic terrorist who now calls the Ivory Tower home:

“Members of the Weather Underground make up half of this list; some are well known, like Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers is now retired from the University of Illinois, while Dohrn is still teaching at Northwestern Law,” writes Ryan James Girdusky in a guest blog post Wednesday about the dozen or so former members of domestic terrorist organizations who are now college professors."


Domestic Terrorists Teaching At Colleges?

why are these colleges hiring these terroist what good can our child learn from them? other then being indoctrinated
 
Jack Hays said:
You certainly have the right to your own unique definition of "liberty" but if it's shared by no one else you'll have a hard time discussing it.:cool:
Click to expand...
Then it's good that I have the constitution to protect my individual right to discuss liberty as I see fit, then isn't it?
dancing.gif
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Then it's good that I have the constitution to protect my right to discuss liberty as I see fit, then isn't it?
dancing.gif
Click to expand...

Too bad your fellow Libbos are anxiously trying to take those rights away.
 
apdst said:
Too bad your fellow Libbos are anxiously trying to take those rights away.
Click to expand...
Too bad your fellow cons would rather see you die than enjoy life without the constant barrage of their hate and fear mongering.
 
Moot said:
Too bad your fellow cons would rather see you die than enjoy life without the constant barrage of their hate and fear mongering.
Click to expand...

WTH are you even talking about?!? :rofl
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, it is. You'll just have a hard time making a difference.:cool:
Click to expand...
Well, after you're long dead from squabbling over your liberty, I'll still be here enjoying mine.

dancing.gif
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Well, you were the one wants to die for liberty, so what are you waiting for? An invitation?

dancing.gif
Click to expand...

Another lie. I did not say I seek death. I said some must die for liberty so that others can enjoy it. I served, but was luckier than others. You seem disinclined to serve. Why is that?:cool:
 
pbrauer said:
That is a lie.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah?? Who is it trying to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights? It sure as hell ain't the Conservatives! Which president forced an American citizen to shut down his website? Sure hell wasn't a Conservative president!
 
apdst said:
Oh yeah?? Who is it trying to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights? It sure as hell ain't the Conservatives! Which president forced an American citizen to shut down his website? Sure hell wasn't a Conservative president!
Click to expand...
And lets not forget the man sitting in jail for exercising is 1st amendment rights and will require protection the rest of his life so Obama could lie and blame his video for the deaths of 4 Americans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom