Hitlers' Youth corp reaches America

[Guest shiloh357]

This just defies logic for me and I'm not convinced that you've really examined this for yourself. Please try to forget what Obama has told you to think for just a second and consider this question on face value:

Would your conscience let you be a Girl Scout leader with Charlie Manson as your partner as long as you could say that you disagree with the way he maliciously hacked a bunch of innocent people to death 35 years ago?

This is the same thing only you don't know the person of Bill Ayers like you know Charlie Manson. They are BOTH bad news and unrepentant murderers. One of them just has political allies in high places while the other rots in a prison.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason.

But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society.

No one ever said liberals were rational.

That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter.

He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day.

You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past?

[WillingToDie]

This just defies logic for me and I'm not convinced that you've really examined this for yourself. Please try to forget what Obama has told you to think for just a second and consider this question on face value:

Would your conscience let you be a Girl Scout leader with Charlie Manson as your partner as long as you could say that you disagree with the way he maliciously hacked a bunch of innocent people to death 35 years ago?

This is the same thing only you don't know the person of Bill Ayers like you know Charlie Manson. They are BOTH bad news and unrepentant murderers. One of them just has political allies in high places while the other rots in a prison.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason.

But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society.

No one ever said liberals were rational.

That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter.

He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day.

You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past?

I find great irony in your first statement.

And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people.

[Guest yod]

You claim to be a Christian, correct?

no, she doesn't. for that reason, I think she deserves more slack than someone who does.

But hamburgers, did you see the article written by an FBI agent who had infilltrated the inner circle of Weather Underground? He asked them (Ayers & Dohrn were there) what their plan was if they were able to actually take over the nation and they said that the population would be "re-educated" and those who would not comply would be sent to special "re-education" centers. This agent then asked them about the conservatives who would never accept their ideals. They estimated that to be about 25 million people and decided that they would have to be "eliminated" (killed) and then they sat around devising ways to kill 25 million people as a practical matter.

You can see the agent say it in his own words during an interview in the 1970s by searching for Larry Grathwohl on YouTube

These people are much more dangerous than Charlie Manson because they are highly educated and could have the means to complete their plan with a friend in the White House. Do I think they will attempt this? Not really....but I also wouldn't put it past them since they are publicly unrepentant.

I do think that they will use their influence to "re-educate" America and its kids...like this Obama Youth program is planning to do.

[Guest shiloh357]

This just defies logic for me and I'm not convinced that you've really examined this for yourself. Please try to forget what Obama has told you to think for just a second and consider this question on face value:

Would your conscience let you be a Girl Scout leader with Charlie Manson as your partner as long as you could say that you disagree with the way he maliciously hacked a bunch of innocent people to death 35 years ago?

This is the same thing only you don't know the person of Bill Ayers like you know Charlie Manson. They are BOTH bad news and unrepentant murderers. One of them just has political allies in high places while the other rots in a prison.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason.

But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society.

No one ever said liberals were rational.

That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter.

He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day.

You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past?

I find great irony in your first statement.

And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people.

Which is not really the same as expressing regret for what He did. Its doing something that hurts someone's feelings and saying you're sorry their feelings got hurt, but not going so far as saying you're sorry what what you did. Anybody can get on TV and say what is expedient at the moment. If Ayers truly regrets it, it will make full monetary restitution to the injured and/or their familes and volunteer to serve the time he deserves for his actions.

Words of regret are for the most part uselss unless backed with corresponding action. When he backs his words with action, then he might have some credibility. Of course that would mean excersizing a little thing called "integrity." Something liberals don't know much about.

[WillingToDie]

This just defies logic for me and I'm not convinced that you've really examined this for yourself. Please try to forget what Obama has told you to think for just a second and consider this question on face value:

Would your conscience let you be a Girl Scout leader with Charlie Manson as your partner as long as you could say that you disagree with the way he maliciously hacked a bunch of innocent people to death 35 years ago?

This is the same thing only you don't know the person of Bill Ayers like you know Charlie Manson. They are BOTH bad news and unrepentant murderers. One of them just has political allies in high places while the other rots in a prison.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason.

But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society.

No one ever said liberals were rational.

That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter.

He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day.

You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past?

I find great irony in your first statement.

And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people.

Which is not really the same as expressing regret for what He did. Its doing something that hurts someone's feelings and saying you're sorry their feelings got hurt, but not going so far as saying you're sorry what what you did. Anybody can get on TV and say what is expedient at the moment. If Ayers truly regrets it, it will make full monetary restitution to the injured and/or their familes and volunteer to serve the time he deserves for his actions.

Words of regret are for the most part uselss unless backed with corresponding action. When he backs his words with action, then he might have some credibility. Of course that would mean excersizing a little thing called "integrity." Something liberals don't know much about.

That last statement is uncalled for. There is integrity (and lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle.

[Guest shiloh357]

This just defies logic for me and I'm not convinced that you've really examined this for yourself. Please try to forget what Obama has told you to think for just a second and consider this question on face value:

Would your conscience let you be a Girl Scout leader with Charlie Manson as your partner as long as you could say that you disagree with the way he maliciously hacked a bunch of innocent people to death 35 years ago?

This is the same thing only you don't know the person of Bill Ayers like you know Charlie Manson. They are BOTH bad news and unrepentant murderers. One of them just has political allies in high places while the other rots in a prison.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason.

But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society.

No one ever said liberals were rational.

That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter.

He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day.

You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past?

I find great irony in your first statement.

And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people.

Which is not really the same as expressing regret for what He did. Its doing something that hurts someone's feelings and saying you're sorry their feelings got hurt, but not going so far as saying you're sorry what what you did. Anybody can get on TV and say what is expedient at the moment. If Ayers truly regrets it, it will make full monetary restitution to the injured and/or their familes and volunteer to serve the time he deserves for his actions.

Words of regret are for the most part uselss unless backed with corresponding action. When he backs his words with action, then he might have some credibility. Of course that would mean excersizing a little thing called "integrity." Something liberals don't know much about.

That last statement is uncalled for. There is integrity (and lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle.

Defending Obama's association with Ayers requres one to suspend both integrity and sound moral judgment and is an exercise in intellectual suicide.

[WillingToDie]

This just defies logic for me and I'm not convinced that you've really examined this for yourself. Please try to forget what Obama has told you to think for just a second and consider this question on face value:

Would your conscience let you be a Girl Scout leader with Charlie Manson as your partner as long as you could say that you disagree with the way he maliciously hacked a bunch of innocent people to death 35 years ago?

This is the same thing only you don't know the person of Bill Ayers like you know Charlie Manson. They are BOTH bad news and unrepentant murderers. One of them just has political allies in high places while the other rots in a prison.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason.

But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society.

No one ever said liberals were rational.

That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter.

He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day.

You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past?

I find great irony in your first statement.

And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people.

Which is not really the same as expressing regret for what He did. Its doing something that hurts someone's feelings and saying you're sorry their feelings got hurt, but not going so far as saying you're sorry what what you did. Anybody can get on TV and say what is expedient at the moment. If Ayers truly regrets it, it will make full monetary restitution to the injured and/or their familes and volunteer to serve the time he deserves for his actions.

Words of regret are for the most part uselss unless backed with corresponding action. When he backs his words with action, then he might have some credibility. Of course that would mean excersizing a little thing called "integrity." Something liberals don't know much about.

That last statement is uncalled for. There is integrity (and lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle.

Defending Obama's association with Ayers requres one to suspend both integrity and sound moral judgment and is an exercise in intellectual suicide.

Think what you want, nothing I say will change your mind. My point still stands that making blanket statements, regarding both conservatives and liberals, is not only uncalled for but inaccurate.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Yod, I'm not about to try and get into an argument trying to defend Ayers and depict him as a "good guy", because I don't believe that would be true. And I'm not trying to argue he's a "good guy".

I'm saying that at some point you have to recognize that acts a person committed almost 40 years ago don't mean that we as a people need to completely ostracize them and everything they do. Ayers isn't a "good guy" when you look at his past. But at some point we have to put the past behind us and focus on the present instead of holding grudges.

[undone]

I think it's more about what we don't know about the new president-elect. When you add up all the associations he has with people of questionable moral character, you're left to wonder what that means in terms of how he will govern as president. Add that to his positions on most political issues and you have someone who seems to stand in stark contrast to the ideals and philosophies of most conservative Christians.

Hence the onslaught of speculation and conjecture regarding what we should expect.

Other than being a good husband and dad, I struggle to find anything I can pin my hopes to.

[MorningGlory]

I think it's more about what we don't know about the new president-elect. When you add up all the associations he has with people of questionable moral character, you're left to wonder what that means in terms of how he will govern as president. Add that to his positions on most political issues and you have someone who seems to stand in stark contrast to the ideals and philosophies of most conservative Christians.

Hence the onslaught of speculation and conjecture regarding what we should expect.

Other than being a good husband and dad, I struggle to find anything I can pin my hopes to.

I didn't vote for Obama either but I've come to the realization that he's the only President we will have after January 20th and we need to support him. If he turns out to be as bad as some think well.....we can start trying to get rid of him. I put it in perspective; how much worse can things get anyway? If he turns out to be a good President then we can feel good about supporting him. I still support President Bush, as my President, and I've been mad at him for years.