Dig It

[sirs]

You know, sirs, if the leaders of the Democratic Party ever DID grow a pair and take on the fascists, the militarists and the plutocrats head-to-head, the sheeple just might surprise you. 

And if they ever did grow such a malignant mindset, in tackling your calls of psuedo fascism & militarism, they'd never see the light of day, in running this country

[Michael Tee]

<<You don't see the disconnect of advocating the end of violence by using violence?>>

No, you gotta be realistic.  There are grades of violence.  Blowing up an empty building is vastly different from napalming families and killing two million people.  It's only fascist spinmeisters who would pretend to be horrified by the former but not by the latter.

Although personally I think the domestic bombing campaign was a big mistake.  It was part of "bring the war home," but if you don't have the boots on the ground, bringing the war home would be suicidal.  Look at Kent State, that says it all.  And those kids weren't even armed.  I think Ayers and his pals were guilty of a classic communist error -- there's a technical name for it, it's an "ism" named after a guy who started a revolution before the people were ready for it - - they rushed to revolutionary activities when they were too far out in front of the people. 

People, especially self-appointed "revolutionaries," should pay more attention to the words of Lenin.  Especially "Things have to get worse before they can get better."  A broad-based revolution of the masses can only occur when things are really fucked up, typically when the country is on the losing end of a disastrous war with casualties running into the millions.  That's why the revolutionary dream is actually better served by John Insane as President than by Obama.  Insane is far more likely than Obama to get the country embroiled in some God-awful disaster just because he's so fucking stupid and unbalanced.  But it's precisely because he IS so totally fucked-up that he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting his finger close to the button.

[Michael Tee]

<<And if they ever did grow such a malignant mindset, in tackling your calls of psuedo fascism & militarism, they'd never see the light of day, in running this country>>

Oh I know that's what you think and that is why I prefaced my remarks with "you might be surprised."

Unfortunately we'll never find out which one of us is right because the chances of the Democrats growing a pair are about equal to my chances of being elected President.

[sirs]

Thank God for small miracles

[Xavier_Onassis]

You don't see the disconnect of advocating the end of violence by using violence?


And don't you see that is EXACTLY what the Air Force and the rest of the US military was doing in Vietnam?

It is not like Vietnamese came over and attacked Fort Ord or Quantico or anything.

There was no real reason why the US should have been defending one group of Vietnamese against another, especially since the US actually PREVENTED elections which were written into the Dien Bien Phu talks to be held.

[BT]

And don't you see that is EXACTLY what the Air Force and the rest of the US military was doing in Vietnam?

And don't you see that when discussing Bill Ayers we have no need to contemplate whether elephants sleep whilst they stand. The Air Force and Ayers are unrelated.

One action was lawful.  One wasn't.

[Michael Tee]

<<lawful>>

I guess the U.S. airforce action was "lawful" and Bill Ayers' action was unlawful.  By the laws of the U.S. government, of course.

So, it's unlawful to blow up an empty building but it's lawful to drop tons of napalm on families, on children.

I appreciate what BT is trying to say - - it has a certain validity for a certain mindset.  As long as the law says it's OK, it's acceptable.  Roasting the skin off a whole Vietnamese family in their own home is OK because the law - - the U.S. law of course - - says it's permitted.  Case closed.  Blowing up an empty building to protest the napalming of the Vietnamese family is, of course, unlawful.  So it's very definitely not OK.

I hope BT can appreciate another point of view - - that things are judged in and of themselves as to whether they are monstrous or innocuous, and that when something as innately monstrous as the burning alive of thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings is concerned, some of us just don't give a shit any more exactly what the law says about it, because if the law doesn't condemn it, then the law too is monstrous.  And when Bill Ayers sets out to blow up an empty building in protest, a lot of people don't give a shit what the law has to say about that either, because at that point, the law itself is totally discredited.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am of the opinion that napalming a Vietnamese family, or indeed, anyone in Vietnam was illegal according to Vietnamese law.

Murder is pretty much illegal everywhere.

So the Airforce is illegal to bomb the Vietnamese, and it was also illegal for this guy to bomb a building. But since the Airforce actually killed people, that was MORE illegal.

I don't think saying that Vietnamese law is trumped by a lack of US law regarding murder by napalm.

We know already that I vass yust followink orders" is not a valid excuse.

[BT]

I hope BT can appreciate another point of view - - that things are judged in and of themselves as to whether they are monstrous or innocuous,

Thank you for stating my point of view better than i did.

Ayers actions should be judged on their own merits.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"That Ayers still has the balls to stomp on a U.S. flag and condemn their fascism and militarism consistently from the Sixties till the present shows a man strong in his convictions and uncompromising in his battle with the forces of evil.  Good for him!  And good for Obama for standing up for people like him"

I agree with SIRS.
Lets hope NoBAMA will make "standing up for people" that stomp on the American Flag a centerpiece of his Fall campaign.
Michael says "Ayers had the balls", but does NoBAMA "have the balls" to put Ayers front and center?

[Michael Tee]

BT:  <<Thank you for stating my point of view better than i did.

<<Ayers actions should be judged on their own merits.>>

Yeah and so should the actions of the U.S. government and its armed forces.

CU4:       << . . . but does NoBAMA "have the balls" to put Ayers front and center?>>

Probably not, unfortunately, but he's still much the better man than John Insane.  By a very wide margin.

[sirs]

Since Tee can't even be civil enough to refer to McCain's name properly, when criticising him, I suppose we need to go back to referring to Oblather & Ginsborg, in order to downgrade the debate, to the right level he can handle

[BT]

Yeah and so should the actions of the U.S. government and its armed forces.

Feel free to criticize the actions of the US government.

But in the meantime we are discussing Ayers actions.

[Michael Tee]

<<Feel free to criticize the actions of the US government.

<<But in the meantime we are discussing Ayers actions.>>

Sure, but discuss Ayers' actions in context.  He was protesting the infinitely greater violence of the U.S. government, therefore his actions were perfectly justified.  Ayers is a genuine American hero.

[BT]

He was protesting the infinitely greater violence of the U.S. government, therefore his actions were perfectly justified.  Ayers is a genuine American hero.

Nah. He's a hypocrite.