• 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

It's amazing how Leftists defend Ayers! :roll:

Ayers is defnitely guilty of treason. He needs to be tried and executed.
It's even more amazing how the rightwingers defend rightwing terrorists and traitors.
 
I've already provided it. Only a dolt would find credibility in copies of copies of the originals; originals that no identifiable person has ever laid eyes on.
lol Everything on the internet is a copy. Doh. So why cant you prove the DSM were fake?
 
Last edited:
I was in agreement with apdst who said "buh bye, credibility." I still am. :cool:
What about your credibilty, polgara? Do you have any?
 
The right is obviously very scared of Ayers
Obviously. Or it could be Ayers is the only punching bag they have left now that their birther bowel movement went down the toilet.
 
What about your credibilty, polgara? Do you have any?

I believe I do, and since my opinion is as valid as anyone else's, I posted my thoughts. If you don't agree, that's your opinion, but is it a usual tactic of yours that you question someone's credibility, just because you might not agree with them? Strange way to debate, Moot. Perhaps you think that everything you post is the only correct way to think. If so, you need to work on that, since it seems rather self-righteous and arrogant, and frankly...off-putting! :thumbdown:
 
I believe I do, and since my opinion is as valid as anyone else's, I posted my thoughts. If you don't agree, that's your opinion, but is it a usual tactic of yours that you question someone's credibility, just because you might not agree with them? Strange way to debate, Moot. Perhaps you think that everything you post is the only correct way to think. If so, you need to work on that, since it seems rather self-righteous and arrogant, and frankly...off-putting! thumbdown
You seem to have opinions confused with emoticons, polgara. :naughty Yes, you can have opinions, everyone can have opinions....but your opinions completely lack substance and relevance. :2sick1: So no, your opinions are not valid. :thumbdown Tee hee, have a nice day, polgara. :neener
 
You seem to have opinions confused with emoticons, polgara. :naughty Yes, you can have opinions, everyone can have opinions....but your opinions completely lack substance and relevance. :2sick1: So no, your opinions are not valid. :thumbdown Tee hee, have a nice day, polgara. :neener


Admittedly a small sample size, but Polgara seems quite bit more likely than you to be taken seriously.:peace
 
lol Everything on the internet is a copy. Doh. So why cant you prove the DSM were fake?

Show me the originals. Shouldn't be that hard, huh? Let's see it.
 
It's even more amazing how the rightwingers defend rightwing terrorists and traitors.

What terrorists and traitors have I defended?
 
You seem to have opinions confused with emoticons, polgara. :naughty Yes, you can have opinions, everyone can have opinions....but your opinions completely lack substance and relevance. :2sick1: So no, your opinions are not valid. :thumbdown Tee hee, have a nice day, polgara. :neener

:naughty: I intend to, you rascal! You do the same! Bless those emoticons!
 
Admittedly a small sample size, but Polgara seems quite bit more likely than you to be taken seriously.:peace
Personal attack noted. :fueltofir
 
Out for this evening, darn it!

G'nite. :2wave:

Be well.
 
Good for you, we're the same age. Perhaps the difference is that I actually served in DaNang, and you? And yes, the POTUS did indeed have the authority to bomb supply lines. Funny how you exempt Johnson from your indictment - if it was an unconstitutional or unauthorized action, Johnson is on the hook as well. The difference between the two - Johnson committed more and more troops all throughout his terms, Nixon withdrew troops and closed down the conflict.

Nixon ramped up the bombing because activity on the trail was ramped up at the time.
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?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668
 
Last edited:
And LaPierre and the NRA have never committed terrorist acts. That is a rather important difference that you conveniently left out.
They don't have to, they have a dimwit, brainwashed following to do their dirty work for them. Arrrg, we'll fight to da death for r second amindment rights..... arf arf.
 
Last edited:
FAIL. Your own link says the copies were verified and authenticated by several sources....and nobody has denied the content of the memos were false, including the people named in the memos. So now what are you going to do....throw another tantrum?

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?
 
They don't have to, they have a dimwit, brainwashed following to do their dirty work for them. Arrrg, we'll fight to da death for r second amindment rights..... arf arf.

For which amendments would you fight to the death?:mrgreen:
 
For which amendments would you fight to the death?:mrgreen:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom