Thread: Ayers speaks on his terrorism link with Obama

Originally Posted by Consultant

I still want to know, what is it OK for me to blow up?

I don't like fact that my new neighbor across the cul-de-sac has a crappy old VW Bug on jack-stands in his driveway. Can I blow that up?

I promise not to hurt anybody.

Consultant,

Try approaching your question as a leader instead of a follower. I'm still working on a leader-style answer myself. It's enlightening.

If you want a short e-peen answer I offer this: blow up that VW if you have the balls. But don't come looking for forgiveness. You have to earn it.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Consultant, you keep inferring that someone here has condoned Bill Ayer's past actions. Please provide a link to the post that shows this. I highly doubt you will/can do this.

Well hells bells, Hawg edited my post, deleted the word "bad" when describing what he did and re-dubbed it "questionable". And I wouldn't say people are condoning what he did, but they sure are eager to excuse it and sweep it under the rug - why? Because he went to Columbia and won "Citizen of the Year" from Mayor Daly in 1997? I don't see it.

The FBI labeled his group a Domestic Terrorist Organization back in the day and he got off because of some stuff about illegal wire taps in the investigation. Whatever. Hopefully it's irrelevant.Now we are getting somewhere, it is irrelevant.

As for approaching it like a leader, I should just start talking to the teenagers on my street about eye pollution and generate a grass-roots effort of neighborhood cleansing that will result in THEM blowing up the VW and thus taking the fall. I'll just be a "Community Organizer".
(It's ok to admit that I'm hilarious, he already got elected)

Con, he did not attack anyone, and he did not attack the country per se. They used very extreme measures to get the attention of those calling the shots in government. They intentionally avoided hurting anyone. They actually called in a warning. So yes, what he did could be argued as questionable. Just because his tactics were distasteful does not mean that the motives weren't irrelevant or wrong or misguided. They were protesting the US' presence in Viet Nam (another idiotic illogical war). Not really misguided, in fact a good cause, but questionable tactics. This is why I say questionable.

And to discredit his work as an educator, 30 years after his "distasteful" actions, solely because of what he did 30 years ago is appropriate why? I understand that you went out of your way to not call him a terrorist, but that is thinly veiled, after reading your argument. But like you said, it most definitely irrelevant.