Breitbart Confidant: Tapes Of Obama Will Be Released Soon

reply to post by mastahunta


There are articles posted all throughout this thread even as recent as
the previous page that show Obama ties to radicals.


So, I did not dodge

reply to post by burntheships


As more evidence for the sexual indoctrination of young children, I thought you might be interested in a thread I did last night. I feel it should be added to this thread since it certainly falls within the scope of the agenda we're discussing.

Colo. Gov. calls Lt. Gov. ‘sex star’ at elementary school [AUDIO]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's just plain weird the way he is embarrassed for saying 'sex star' and corrects himself by saying 'sex symbol'.
What's the difference?
He should be ashamed of himself for introducing his associate in this manner when 40 elementary age children were present.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by mastahunta

 

There are articles posted all throughout this thread even as recent as
the previous page that show Obama ties to radicals.


So, I did not dodge

edit on 4-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

having ties to radicals doesn't mean he was "radicalized". it's like saying i am a conservative because my dad and a lot of people i associate with who, in one way or another have been influential on me, are conservative. if Ayers "radicalized" Obama, then why doesn't Obama wish to dissolve his office as president as well as the rest of the government in favor of the people making decisions that effect their lives directly, aka direct democracy? why doesn't Obama believe in workers' control over the means of production, ie, worker controlled marketplaces and factories with no bosses? why isn't Obama trying to pull us out of every war we are currently in? why doesn't Obama oppose corporate power and government run subsidies in favor of direct worker control of industry and remuneration of these goods to all individuals according to need without government intervention? these are the basic principles that Ayers believes. if he actually had an effect on Obama, these would be the things Obama would be pushing, but he's not. he's basically trying to do the opposite of this: he bails out big business, takes away democratic control from the people, is sending more troops over seas, could give two #s about worker control of industry, etc. if anything, while i am not personally a fan of a lot of those ideas that Ayers is in favor of, i wish Obama was more like Ayers.

reply to post by eboyd


Its called "Guilt by Association" and it is a logical fallacy. Of course that doesn't matter in a thread in which the entire premise is based upon a logical fallacy.

Please forward to the 4 minute mark where he explains that people, including journalists, who didn't go along with the government's agenda were executed.

reply to post by Afterthought


Thanks for the link to your thread.
What is wrong with people? In a world where teachers are molesting
students, this man speaks like that?

reply to post by burntheships


No thanks necessary. I'm simply glad you checked it out and understand how warped it all is.
It's as though they want adults and children to engage in sexual relationships.

Just as the ex-KGB official (in the video I linked to above) discusses the demoralization of a nation is necessary in order to bring it to ruin.

Originally posted by bo12au
reply to post by eboyd

 

Non viloent you say? I give you the weather underground

Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.[3]

The "Days of Rage", their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven.The group planned the October 8–11 event as a "National Action" built around John Jacobs' slogan, "bring the war home."[1] The National Action grew out of a resolution drafted by Jacobs and introduced at the October 1968 SDS National Council meeting in Boulder, Colorado. The resolution, titled "The Elections Don't Mean #—Vote Where the Power Is—Our Power Is In The Street" and adopted by the council, was prompted by the success of the Democratic National Convention protests in August 1968 and reflected Jacobs' strong advocacy of direct action as a political strategy.

The direct actions included vandalism against homes, businesses and automobiles, and assault against police officers. Dozens were injured, and over 280 members of the Weather Underground were arrested.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows was the title of a position paper they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other radical movements[5] to achieve "the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism."[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

the Weather Underground didn't even have 280 members. that's a load of crap. they may have had followers who did things in the name of the Weather Underground, and yes, there was a movement that took the same name that came about after the WUO's dissolution in the late 70's, but that isn't the group i am defending. this list provides the names of the Weather Underground members -- all 30 or so of them:

en.wikipedia.org...

the Weather Underground began as a militant movement of left-wing anarchists who, in response to attacks against the Black Panthers and, ultimately, the murder of Fred Hampton by the police, basically wanted a violent revolution to take place in the US and they wanted to take charge of it. their goals were, indeed, very violent at first. if they would have acted on these ideas then i would concede they were terrorists, but they didn't. when three members were killed while making a bomb, they changed their tactics very quickly and decided instead to bomb symbolic targets, such as government buildings, in strategic ways as to ensure no deaths or injuries. people were warned to evacuate ahead of time, members stayed near by to ensure that no one was close enough to get injured, etc. the assertion that they planned to assault automobiles and homes in the article you linked is bogus.

now, with that said, do i believe this tactic was the "right" one to use? well, if by right we mean just and morally sound, then i would say that i do personally have some reservations about what they did. while i do wish to see the dissolution of the state system myself, i feel the best way to bring it about is non-violent change that first occurs within education, then the workplace, then spreads to the rest of society -- which, btw, seems to be close to Bill Ayers M.O. himself today. however, i do feel that any tactic used to advance the ideas of direct democracy and an end to oppression by the state and its institutions is an aspect of a greater gradual revolution that has been occurring since the beginning of time and will only end when civilization ends. in other words, as creatures with the capacity for symbolic and critical thought, we tend towards a society in which individual freedom and prosperity for all that invest themselves in these principles will be given access, and only when the people have direct control over their own fate will they gain traction and find themselves in a situation where this is even remotely possible. i feel that any tactic used to advanced this idea, whether right or wrong, is a part of this gradual revolution towards a better world and towards freedom and prosperity for all.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by eboyd

 

Its called "Guilt by Association" and it is a logical fallacy. Of course that doesn't matter in a thread in which the entire premise is based upon a logical fallacy.

true indeed.

reply to post by eboyd


OK, so you believe that Ayers was a nonviolent person who never hurt anyone and has had his reputation tarnished. You also believe that other groups who followed his teachings may have done violent things, but this should not have any basis on what Ayers was teaching.

How about this angle:
Ayers used to promote "kill your parents", yet never harmed anyone. He was simply a very influential person who had many followers that believed that he had the key to changing society for the better.

Manson also never directly harmed anyone, but was influential to a small group who did kill many. Manson also thought society needed to be revamped and spoke about many ways to bring about change for the better.

So, in conclusion, both Ayers and Manson were charismatic orators who were able to capture the minds of people and get them to see how change could be brought about. Even though neither man harmed anyone, they did influence people to do some violent things.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by eboyd

 

OK, so you believe that Ayers was a nonviolent person who never hurt anyone and has had his reputation tarnished. You also believe that other groups who followed his teachings may have done violent things, but this should not have any basis on what Ayers was teaching.

How about this angle:
Ayers used to promote "kill your parents", yet never harmed anyone. He was simply a very influential person who had many followers that believed that he had the key to changing society for the better.

Manson also never directly harmed anyone, but was influential to a small group who did kill many. Manson also thought society needed to be revamped and spoke about many ways to bring about change for the better.

So, in conclusion, both Ayers and Manson were charismatic orators who were able to capture the minds of people and get them to see how change could be brought about. Even though neither man harmed anyone, they did influence people to do some violent things.

"Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but 'it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,' he said. 'It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.'"

www.nytimes.com...

the literal interpretation of this quote, which cannot even be confirmed as having come out of his mouth, is unfounded. if he even said it, it was a joke made in poor taste. anyone taking it literally and acting upon it is a psychopath.

do you blame violent rap music or movies about the mafia or gangs for the prevalence of violence within society just because people are influenced by them? this is hardly different from these examples.

and with this quote being negated, the difference between Manson and Ayers is clear: Ayers never influenced people to commit violence against other people directly or on purpose. if anyone followed that quote literally, they did so on their own, without Ayers' approval. Manson is unapologetic about his direct influence over people to kill others. that is a huge difference.

reply to post by eboyd

A review of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days that appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, quoted Ayers saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

blogs.suntimes.com...

Ayers actually was involved in the deaths of his own assciates in the Pentagon, Capitol
and State Department bombings.

He got off on a technicality.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by eboyd

 

A review of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days that appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, quoted Ayers saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

blogs.suntimes.com...

Read my comment again. I'm not condoning Ayers' acts.

Ayers actually was involved in the deaths of his own assciates in the Pentagon, Capitol
and State Department bombings.

He got off on a technicality.

Where is your evidence?? That video does nothing but reinforce your quote above and talk about his ties to Obama.

reply to post by eboyd


His defense is that he doesn't remember saying to kill all rich people and you believe this?
OK. I can easily see right now who I'm dealing with. Don't you think that if he actually never ever stated that killing anyone was an acceptible action to combat a power structure, he would have a firmer defense? If I were him and was being accused of telling people to kill their parents and rich people, I would do my best to make it quite clear to everyone that under no circumstances have I ever condoned murdering anyone for any reason. Never in a million years would I say, "Well, now, I don't remember," and think that was an adequate defense.

Regardless of whether or not musical lyrics can cause someone to commit a crime, people have been known to be influenced by the ideas and words of those they idolize.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by eboyd

 

His defense is that he doesn't remember saying to kill all rich people and you believe this?

I don't really care if he said that or not. Just reading that quote I can tell it was a joke, no matter how poor taste it was in. The fact of the matter is that he never killed anyone, nor did anyone under his direct influence. The same cannot be said for Charles Manson.

OK. I can easily see right now who I'm dealing with.

What is that supposed to mean???

Don't you think that if he actually never ever stated that killing anyone was an acceptible action to combat a power structure, he would have a firmer defense? If I were him and was being accused of telling people to kill their parents and rich people, I would do my best to make it quite clear to everyone that under no circumstances have I ever condoned murdering anyone for any reason. Never in a million years would I say, "Well, now, I don't remember," and think that was an adequate defense.

Even if he did defend killing certain people (which he probably did in his early 20's at the beginning of the WUO) he,
nor anyone he directly influenced, ever killed anyone under his orders.

Regardless of whether or not musical lyrics can cause someone to commit a crime, people have been known to be influenced by the ideas and words of those they idolize.

Does that make the artist responsible for the acts in question? Should Jimi Hendrix be held responsible for someone who listened to "Hey Joe" and killed his girlfriend simply because he popularized that song? More related to this discussion, should The Beatles be blamed for Manson?

Originally posted by eboyd
Where is your evidence??

Ayers escaped prosecution on procedural grounds. In the words of Ayers,

"Guilty as hell, free as a bird --

www.americanthinker.com...

Weather Underground Bombs the Capitol, Pentagon, and State Department


www.youtube.com...

Ayers buddies Terry Robbins, and Ayers girlfriend at the time .....were killed in the bombings

en.wikipedia.org...
The group Ayers headed in Detroit, Michigan became one of the earliest gatherings of what became the Weatherman. Before the June 1969 SDS convention, Ayers became a prominent leader of the group, which arose as a result of a schism in SDS.[8] "During that time his infatuation with street fighting grew and he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more pronounced over the year [1969]", disaffected former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson wrote in 2001. Ayers had previously been a roommate of Terry Robbins, a fellow militant who was killed in 1970 along with Ayers' girlfriend Oughton and one other member in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, while constructing anti-personnel bombs intended for a non-commissioned officer dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.[11] Ayers was living in Michigan at that time.

By the end of April, the FBI offices were to terminate all files dealing with leftist groups.[31] The files were a part of an FBI program called COINTELPRO.[32] However, after COINTELPRO was dissolved in 1971 by J. Edgar Hoover,[33] the FBI continued its counterintelligence on groups like the Weather Underground. In 1973, the FBI established the 'Special Target Information Development' program, where agents were sent undercover to penetrate the Weather Underground. Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground was no longer a fugitive organization and could turn themselves in with minimal charges against them.[34] en.wikipedia.org...-autogenerated1-33

reply to post by eboyd

What is that supposed to mean???

I meant that you're the type of person who is able to rationalize anything in your mind in order to make it seem not so evil. You're writing his statements off as jokes when that has never been discussed by either Ayers or anyone else, yet you've decided that he was kidding. How are you able to come to this conclusion? If it was a joke, don't you think he would say that instead of stating that he doesn't have any memory of making these statements and encouraging bombings and murders?

Ayers had some radical ideas and I don't believe that you or anyone should rationalize his statements and actions as jokes or things kids do on a playground with their GI Joe dolls.

In today's time, people can joke about having a bomb in their luggage and nobody's laughing. Yet, you believe Ayers should be forgiven for his views about bombs and murder.

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by eboyd
Where is your evidence??

Ayers escaped prosecution on procedural grounds. In the words of Ayers,

"Guilty as hell, free as a bird --

www.americanthinker.com...

Weather Underground Bombs the Capitol, Pentagon, and State Department

www.youtube.com...

By the end of April, the FBI offices were to terminate all files dealing with leftist groups.[31] The files were a part of an FBI program called COINTELPRO.[32] However, after COINTELPRO was dissolved in 1971 by J. Edgar Hoover,[33] the FBI continued its counterintelligence on groups like the Weather Underground. In 1973, the FBI established the 'Special Target Information Development' program, where agents were sent undercover to penetrate the Weather Underground. Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground was no longer a fugitive organization and could turn themselves in with minimal charges against them.[34] en.wikipedia.org...-autogenerated1-33

I am already aware of all that. My question was about evidence of people dying due to things he did. You have no evidence of that claim. The comrades that died in the explosion that occurred prior to the first bombing was an accident and wasn't his fault in any way.

reply to post by eboyd

comrades

Interesting word choice. I also just noticed that the background where your avatar would be is red.
Are a supporter of communism?

Dead-man switch triggered. There is no off switch.