Why is Liddy acceptable and Ayers is not?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Does anyone think it is possible that somone from the Clinton White House could have:

1. Planned and executed a burglary on the RNC,
2. Bugged the RNC,
3. Admitted to planning to kill a prominent journalist,
4. Addmitted to attempting to use hookers to seduce political opponents, and
5. Admitted to planning to kidnap protestors....

....And become a prominent media and political figure?

McCain has been a regular guest on Liddy's show and no one utters a peep. Liddy gives McCain money every year. And Liddy may have hosted a fundraiser for McCain. Nothin'.

How is this possible?

[Burgold]

DNC instead of RNC if memory serves. Mainly because the Republicans are muddier than the Democrats and the Republicans are using Ayers because most people are wary of the used Republican dogma and stale policy ideas that have failed for eight years.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I've been asking the same question for weeks and I've yet to get an answer.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

DNC instead of RNC if memory serves. Mainly because the Republicans are muddier than the Democrats and the Republicans are using Ayers because most people are wary of the used Republican dogma and stale policy ideas that have failed for eight years.

I know. But I doubt a Clinton hire would bug the DNC.

Maybe in 2008, I guess.

By the way...Liddy also has a weird Hitler fetish. (Note: I read "Will" which is a remarkably readable book. I kind of like Liddy. He should be in an asylum, but I kind of like him).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Because if anyone brings up McCain's ties to Liddy they are part of the liberal news media and other liberal conspiracies. But when someone brings up Ayers they are a "real American."

[brandymac27]

Good Question. When McCain went on David Letterman they spoke briefly about their relationship:

John McCain (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/42219/john_mccain.html) appeared on the David Letterman Show, which for a Republican is the equivalent of Daniel willingly going into the lion's den. But John McCain (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/42219/john_mccain.html) was not afraid, even when Letterman brought up the name of G. Gordon Liddy.

The exchange went like this (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/10/letterman_v_mcc.html):

DL: But did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?

JM: I met him, you know, I mean...

DL: Didn't you attend a fund raiser at his house?

JM: Gordon Liddy's?

After a commercial break, John McCain (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/42219/john_mccain.html) expanded on his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy.

"I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy. And his son, who is also a good friend and supporter of mine."

Letterman was clearly trying to draw a moral equivalent between G. Gordon Liddy, who had gone to jail for his involvement with the Watergate Scandal, and Obama's relationship with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who set bombs and tried to kill people.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1118756/is_g_gordon_liddy_mccains_william_ayers.html?cat=6 2

(Click link for rest of article)


IMO, it's pretty much the same difference. Neither one of them have a right to point their fingers at the other.

[Larry]

Good Question. When McCain went on David Letterman they spoke briefly about their relationship:

John McCain (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/42219/john_mccain.html) appeared on the David Letterman Show, which for a Republican is the equivalent of Daniel willingly going into the lion's den. But John McCain (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/42219/john_mccain.html) was not afraid, even when Letterman brought up the name of G. Gordon Liddy.

The exchange went like this (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/10/letterman_v_mcc.html):

DL: But did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?

JM: I met him, you know, I mean...

DL: Didn't you attend a fund raiser at his house?

JM: Gordon Liddy's?

After a commercial break, John McCain (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/42219/john_mccain.html) expanded on his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy.

"I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy. And his son, who is also a good friend and supporter of mine."

Letterman was clearly trying to draw a moral equivalent between G. Gordon Liddy, who had gone to jail for his involvement with the Watergate Scandal, and Obama's relationship with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who set bombs and tried to kill people.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1118756/is_g_gordon_liddy_mccains_william_ayers.html?cat=6 2

(Click link for rest of article)


IMO, it's pretty much the same difference. Neither one of them have a right to point their fingers at the other.

So Liddy is morally superior to Ayers, because he got convicted and Ayers didn't?

[MurrayH81]

We have a winner.

Liddy is acceptable because he was found guilty by a jury and served some jail time.

Ayers did not (because the same party that is bringing him up also screwed up so badly that the charges had to be droped).

and that's the only reason.

[Jumbo]

One was on Miami Vice and the other was only on a blog.

[expensivegift]

Ayers is a terrorist.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Ayers is a terrorist.
And what do you consider Liddy?

[Predicto]

Here's the difference.

The Republican echo chamber knows how to stay on message.

[brandymac27]

So Liddy is morally superior to Ayers, because he got convicted and Ayers didn't?


According to McCain, yes.

[ntotoro]

And what do you consider Liddy?

Convict.

If he's telling the truth about his role assembling the plumbers, then he's one paranoid mofo. If he's lying, then he's garbage.

[Zguy28]

Why is Liddy acceptable and Ayers is not?

Repentance?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Repentance?
Liddy has never sounded repentant to me. :2cents:

[alexey]

Here's the difference.

The Republican echo chamber knows how to stay on message.
Great point! It is amazing what the GOP was able to accomplish from a psychological standpoint.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Ayers is a terrorist.

And Liddy wanted to murder people on the street.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Repentance?

Have you read Will?

When did Liddy repent? He's only expressed regret about some of the crimes he failed to commit.

[JimboDaMan]

Liddy has never sounded repentant to me. :2cents:Not only that, but he encouraged people to shoot federal agents after he went to jail. Somehow that jail term was a lifetime free pass for futuer terroristic activity. Pity Ayers never spent a weekend in the slammer as a kid for unpaid parking tickets, all this nonsense would surely go away then.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Not only that, but he encouraged people to shoot federal agents after he went to jail.
I've brought this up before but most conservatives seem to ignore it.

[Midnight Judges]

I've always wondered this. Liddy is an unrepentant felon Democracy subverting scum, and for some reason he is also highly respected to this day by fellow Republicans. I don't get it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've always wondered this. Liddy is an unrepentant felon Democracy subverting scum, and for some reason he is also highly respected to this day by fellow Republicans. I don't get it.

Look...he's not THAT respected. (That's at least what conservatives will claim).

He's only given industry-wide awards.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1995/9505170101.asp

[Bang]

I've never understood it either.
When people call him up and thank him for his 'service' to our country, I can only wonder if they actually think what Gordon Liddy did was good for the US.

In a way, I guess, because he bungled it and got caught we were able to finally see our politicans for what they are, like roaches in the light. We'll never have any innocent trust in our government again.
I suppose that's a good thing.

~Bang

[Predicto]

Great point! It is amazing what the GOP was able to accomplish from a psychological standpoint.

Just imagine, if the situation were reversed....


how often do you think Palin and the RNC and Rush and Hannity and Beck would talk about the Keating 5 scandal? 50 times a day?

The Democrats never seem to bring up the Keating 5. Nor does the mainstream media (even though the media is in the bag for the Democrats :rolleyes: ). Why is that?

Because the Republicans are disciplined and never stop attacking.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just imagine, if the situation were reversed....


how often do you think Palin and the RNC and Rush and Hannity and Beck would talk about the Keating 5 scandal? 50 times a day?

The Democrats never seem to bring up the Keating 5. Nor does the mainstream media (even though the media is in the bag for the Democrats :rolleyes: ). Why is that?

Because the Republicans are disciplined and never stop attacking.

It's more than that.

Obama, Biden, etc. all have to begin every paragraph on McCain with "McCain is a true American hero" or whatever. Repubs NEVER have to do that. If you press them, they may admit - under duress - that Obama might kinda like America.

And you never here Democrats go into Manhattan and praise their audience as the "Real America." Obama made one comment about rural areas loving guns and Jesus, and he hasn't stopped apologizing for it since. Ann Coutler can wish for a terrorist attack on the New York Times building, and we all are just supposed to have a chuckle.

This even rears its head on trivial matters like O'Reilly's attack on Jamie Lynn Spears for being a whore and his praise for Bristol Palin - who did the exact same ****ing thing.

Think about this for a second. In the Republican universe, Liddy is a hero while Max Cleland is a traitor and a coward.

Republicans can do or say absolutely anything and get away with it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Democrats never seem to bring up the Keating 5. Nor does the mainstream media (even though the media is in the bag for the Democrats :rolleyes: ). Why is that?


If Obama had once made a joke about the looks of one of the Bush twins, how many times do you think we would have seen that video by now?

10,000? 20,000?

Would it just run on an endless loop during the Hannity and other guy Show?

Republicans use videos that don't exist (remember the Michelle Obama "whitey" video) as attacks.

Am I ranting?

I feel like I may be ranting.

[81artmonk]

To best of my knowledge(which I wasn't around than, but only read about it) he may have done things that were illegal and immoral, but didn't engage in terrorist activities.

I do believe that he doesn't feel that what he did was a good thing like Ayers has admitted to.

[JimboDaMan]

To best of my knowledge(which I wasn't around than, but only read about it) he may have done things that were illegal and immoral, but didn't engage in terrorist activities.

I do believe that he doesn't feel that what he did was a good thing like Ayers has admitted to.He told his listeners to shoot federal agents. In the head.

That sounds pretty terroristic to me.

[Larry]

To best of my knowledge(which I wasn't around than, but only read about it) he may have done things that were illegal and immoral, but didn't engage in terrorist activities.

The OP:


Does anyone think it is possible that somone from the Clinton White House could have:

1. Planned and executed a burglary on the RNC,
2. Bugged the RNC,
3. Admitted to planning to kill a prominent journalist,
4. Addmitted to attempting to use hookers to seduce political opponents, and
5. Admitted to planning to kidnap protestors....

....And become a prominent media and political figure?

McCain has been a regular guest on Liddy's show and no one utters a peep. Liddy gives McCain money every year. And Liddy may have hosted a fundraiser for McCain. Nothin'.

How is this possible?

Now, I don't know if Liddy actually did all of those things. (I hadn't heard of some of them). But I assume the OP wouldn't have put them in there unless he believed them to be actual things that Liddy has actually admitted to.


I do believe that he doesn't feel that what he did was a good thing like Ayers has admitted to.

You're kidding, right? His entire career since that time has been living off of his fame for what he did. He's still milking it. It's his sole "qualification" for being a pundit.

Bill Ayers, OTOH, does not make a living out of traveling around the country, making speeches to people who want to hear how real terrorists blow things up.

[Thiebear]

William Ayers planted bombs at the Pentagon and peoples houses?
G Gordon Liddy bugged the DNC headquarters.

Not the same.

[Thiebear]

He told his listeners to shoot federal agents. In the head.

That sounds pretty terroristic to me.

Link please. Was it in the context of the federal agents breaking into their home in the middle of the night without a warrant shooting at your wife and child with rifles? Was it during Ruby Ridge times?

He used to refer to this all the time, i haven't listened to him in 15 years...
http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm

ATF setting you up and then killing you..

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

William Ayers planted bombs at the Pentagon and peoples houses?
G Gordon Liddy bugged the DNC headquarters.

Not the same.

Liddy wanted to kill Jack Anderson. He had a plot in place to kill Jack Anderson. He has admitted this in his best-selling book Will (which, again, is a hell of a read). The only reason he did not kill Anderson is because Nixon told him no.

Read this again. He was an employee of the White House. And - as part of his job - he wanted to murder a reporter. And make it look like a mugging.

And he admits this.

In print.

He also was willing to murder anyone who got in his way as part of the Ellsbury break-in.

There is a big difference between Ayers and Liddy in that Liddy WANTED TO MURDER PEOPLE but was stopped by his boss...who happened to be the president.

If Liddy had been more persuasive, the Nixon White House would have killed innocent Americans.

[Larry]

William Ayers planted bombs at the Pentagon and peoples houses?
G Gordon Liddy bugged the DNC headquarters.

Not the same.

Have you read the OP? (Or my previous post?)

[brandymac27]

Link please. Was it in the context of the federal agents breaking into their home in the middle of the night without a warrant shooting at your wife and child with rifles? Was it during Ruby Ridge times?


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2505

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

To best of my knowledge(which I wasn't around than, but only read about it) he may have done things that were illegal and immoral, but didn't engage in terrorist activities.

I do believe that he doesn't feel that what he did was a good thing like Ayers has admitted to.

Liddy relishes the fact that he wanted to murder Anderson.

Oh yea, Liddy wanted to firebomb the Brookings Insitute.

Liddy is famous today because he plays up this tough-guy, patriotic bully image.

[Larry]

Link please. Was it in the context of the federal agents breaking into their home in the middle of the night without a warrant shooting at your wife and child with rifles? Was it during Ruby Ridge times?

I've seen it referenced dozens of times.

It's been exaggerated, but not by much. Going from what I've read, he told a caller to his show that if BATF shows up at your house to take your guns away, you should aim for their heads, because they all wear body armor.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Link please. Was it in the context of the federal agents breaking into their home in the middle of the night without a warrant shooting at your wife and child with rifles? Was it during Ruby Ridge times?


Jesus Christ. Does no one pay attention to world events but me?

Here he is defending it in a right-wing publication:




John Hawkins: Changing directions here, one of the things that people who try to discredit you often bring up is your comment back in 1994, "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head." What prompted that comment and other similar ones and do you regret giving a caller that advice? G. Gordon Liddy: Well, no. Because as usual, people remember part of what I said, but not all of what I said. What I did was restate the law. I was talking about a situation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/liddy.php

[JimboDaMan]

Link please. Was it in the context of the federal agents breaking into their home in the middle of the night without a warrant shooting at your wife and child with rifles? Was it during Ruby Ridge times?

He used to refer to this all the time, i haven't listened to him in 15 years...
http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm

ATF setting you up and then killing you..I'm fascinated by the possible hinting that the Ruby Ridge times might have in some way have excused something like this.

Links are galore for anybody who really cares, but this link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,3136852.column) or this link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1995/9505170101.asp) should suffice.

[Thiebear]

Liddy wanted to kill Jack Anderson. He had a plot in place to kill Jack Anderson. He has admitted this in his best-selling book Will (which, again, is a hell of a read). The only reason he did not kill Anderson is because Nixon told him no.

Read this again. He was an employee of the White House. And - as part of his job - he wanted to murder a reporter. And make it look like a mugging.

And he admits this.

In print.

He also was willing to murder anyone who got in his way as part of the Ellsbury break-in.

There is a big difference between Ayers and Liddy in that Liddy WANTED TO MURDER PEOPLE but was stopped by his boss...who happened to be the president.

If Liddy had been more persuasive, the Nixon White House would have killed innocent Americans.


So your saying Liddy "Wanted" to kill people and wrote about it in a book.
AND Ayers did kill people due to the bombings (small child) or some such?

and you don't see the differences at all?

[Thiebear]

Jesus Christ. Does no one pay attention to world events but me?

Here he is defending it in a right-wing publication:



http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/liddy.php

I agree with him, If anyone busts into your house and they are firing weapons at your family.
2 shots to the chest and 1 to the head. Figure out the rest later.

And like i said, the reference i keep seeing is right after waco and ruby ridge and then the gonzalez incident?

[Larry]

Jesus Christ. Does no one pay attention to world events but me?

Here he is defending it in a right-wing publication:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/liddy.php

So what you're saying is that now, he says that when he was telling people how to most efficiently kill uniformed law enforcement officers, he was actually only giving them legal advice? That all he was telling people with his advice on where to shoot them was simply a theoretical discussion of a homeowners legal rights for how to appropriately respond to a police clerical error?

(And, apparently that you believe that?)

[Larry]

I agree with him, If anyone busts into your house and they are firing weapons at your family.
2 shots to the chest and 1 to the head. Figure out the rest later.

And like i said, the reference i keep seeing is right after waco and ruby ridge and then the gonzalez incident?

In all three cases of which, the officers were executing legal warrants?

[zoony]

This thread works as an attack on Liddy. It fails miserably as a defense of Ayers. Which is it intended to be?

It's a fairly basic intelligence test. Sort of like the argument about citing alcohol abuse as an argument for the legalization of hard drugs.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

William Ayers planted bombs at the Pentagon and peoples houses?
G Gordon Liddy bugged the DNC headquarters.

Not the same.

So some wrongs are ok?

Now what about the OP. Do you agree or disagree that if there was a Dem character who had done the exact same thing right-wing pundits would be giving themselves strokes going off about it?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This thread works as an attack on Liddy. It fails miserably as a defense of Ayers. Which is it?

It's a fairly basic intelligence test. Sort of like the argument about citing alcohol abuse as an argument for the legalization of hard drugs.

I believe the point of the thread is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right more then to defend Ayers (who I haven't heard anyone really defend.)

[zoony]

I believe the point of the thread is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right more then to defend Ayers (who I haven't heard anyone really defend.)


hypocrisy in politics? Thats ****ing groundbreaking stuff man :)

:cheers:

[Thiebear]

So some wrongs are ok?

Now what about the OP. Do you agree or disagree that if there was a Dem character who had done the exact same thing right-wing pundits would be giving themselves strokes going off about it?

All wrongs are not the same:
Killing someone is wrong enough to be killed over it.
Saying you want to kill someone will get you in trouble. If you say it about the President the Secret Service come visit you.

[Larry]

This thread works as an attack on Liddy. It fails miserably as a defense of Ayers. Which is it?

The point is expressed in the title of the thread.

Two people, both with violent, extremist pasts. Their histories aren't identical, but it seems reasonable to at least argue that they're morally comparable. (Insofar as it's possible for immorality to be compared. I'm not really aware of any definitive "point scale" for immorality.)

Yet we're being told, over and over again, that one man is morally unfit to serve as President because of a distant association with one, while the other has no problems publicly expressing his respect for the other, with no repercussion.

The question is, "What's the difference?"

[Thiebear]

So what you're saying is that now, he says that when he was telling people how to most efficiently kill uniformed law enforcement officers, he was actually only giving them legal advice? That all he was telling people with his advice on where to shoot them was simply a theoretical discussion of a homeowners legal rights for how to appropriately respond to a police clerical error?

(And, apparently that you believe that?)

In the one you pointed out:
People were breaking into the wrong house and firing weapons at your family.
They are wearing vests so dont aim there, aim at thier head.

or
The ATF that had been in the news for quite a bit at that time.
Liddy was stating you can have the gun from my cold dead fingers....
I have no issue with that.

You may, i don't, i believe if the gov't decided to confiscate all weapons i'd fight back... (LOL and i don't have a gun)...

[brandymac27]

The question is, "What's the difference?"

There is no difference.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

All wrongs are not the same:
Killing someone is wrong enough to be killed over it.
Saying you want to kill someone will get you in trouble. If you say it about the President the Secret Service come visit you.
Liddy didn't say that he wanted to kill someone.

Liddy said that he WOULD have killed someone if he had been given the green light.

[Larry]

All wrongs are not the same:
Killing someone is wrong enough to be killed over it.
Saying you want to kill someone will get you in trouble. If you say it about the President the Secret Service come visit you.

So, it's morally OK for a Presidential candidate to openly associate, and express his respect for, a person who advocated murder, on multiple occasions, including recently.

Whereas a much more distant relationship, with a person who committed a murder, in the much more distant past, well, that's clearly over the line?

[Thiebear]

In all three cases of which, the officers were executing legal warrants?

You go with that :) not going to get all tin foil hat on Ruby and Waco.
Seems to me shooting and burning people to death is a rather poor warrant execution.

[Thiebear]

Liddy didn't say that he wanted to kill someone.

Liddy said that he WOULD have killed someone if he had been given the green light.

isnt that the definition of "want', but not the definition of "did"

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

isnt that the definition of "want', but not the definition of "did"
Did Ayers kill anyone?

[Heisenberg]

Defending either of these guys is pretty pointless.


As stated previously, the point of this is that no semi-educated Obama supporter is going to believe that McCain is somehow dangerous because he's associated with Liddy in the past - so it's not a stretch to expect the same about Obama in regards to Ayers - who didn't have close the relationship as McCain and Liddy.

[Thiebear]

So, it's morally OK for a Presidential candidate to openly associate, and express his respect for, a person who advocated murder, on multiple occasions, including recently.

Whereas a much more distant relationship, with a person who committed a murder, in the much more distant past, well, that's clearly over the line?

I think both are idiots and Liddy slurred his words horribly for years.
BUT AGAIN:

One killed people
One said he wanted to kill someone.
Neither should be applauded, but to say its the same is to make a mockery of what Ayers actually did. Its trying to justify one thing by pulling another person out of the blue and saying.

Don't look here, look over here for at least another 2 weeks. I know for a fact Ayers is a scumbag killer but lets not discuss the facts of the case, lets discuss this other guy.

[Larry]

In the one you pointed out:
People were breaking into the wrong house and firing weapons at your family.
They are wearing vests so dont aim there, aim at thier head.

or
The ATF that had been in the news for quite a bit at that time.
Liddy was stating you can have the gun from my cold dead fingers....
I have no issue with that.

You may, i don't, i believe if the gov't decided to confiscate all weapons i'd fight back... (LOL and i don't have a gun)...

Having trouble figuring out what you're saying.

[Thiebear]

Did Ayers kill anyone?



Brian V. McDonnell, a police sergeant, was fatally wounded in the explosion, and Robert Fogarty, another police officer, was severely wounded in his face and legs and was partially blinded.

[Larry]

You go with that :) not going to get all tin foil hat on Ruby and Waco.
Seems to me shooting and burning people to death is a rather poor warrant execution.

So people should kill uniformed police officers if they disagree with the tactics they use to perform their legally assigned duties?

"Gee, I understand that a judge ruled that there was probable cause that a crime was being committed inside that house, and ordered the police to enter and see, but I don't like the way they entered, so I think they should be killed"?

Granted, I know a bit more about the Waco and Gonzales scenarios than about Ruby Ridge, but please explain to me how those events justify the intentional killing of uniformed police officers.

[Thiebear]

So people should kill uniformed police officers if they disagree with the tactics they use to perform their legally assigned duties?

"Gee, I understand that a judge ruled that there was probable cause that a crime was being committed inside that house, and ordered the police to enter and see, but I don't like the way they entered, so I think they should be killed"?

Granted, I know a bit more about the Waco and Gonzales scenarios than about Ruby Ridge, but please explain to me how those events justify the intentional killing of uniformed police officers.

Your being dense on purpose.
I said: if people come into your house firing weapons at your family you should defend yourself and figure out the mistake later.
to say "I don't like the way they entered" is ****ing lame.
You can let everyone in the house die... i'm not ready to go yet.


In the Ruby Ridge the one sniper shot the women in the head in the doorway with her baby in her arms?
Another was shooting a boy in the back while he was running away after they shot his dog?

Its been 16 years.. i can barely remember Monday.

[GoSkins0721]

Okay, we all admit Ayers is a terrorist. Let's move on to the next topic:

It should come as no surprise that the flawed logic of John McCain continues to spew the radical rights rhetoric and hatred. Let’s use his flawed logic and apply it to the love of country, love of God radical right ticket of McCain/Palin:

Fact: 1994 – Sarah Palin attends Alaskan Independence Party convention. 1995 – Todd Palin joins the Alaskan Independence Party. 2000 – Sarah Palin attends Alaskan Independence Party convention. 2006 - Sarah Palin speaks at the Alaskan Independence Party convention. 2008 - Sarah Palin addresses Alaskan Independence Party convention. John Volger, Founder, Alaskan Independence Party: “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won’t be buried under the American flag.”
McCainsian Logic: Since Sarah Palin pals around with secessionists, Sarah Palin is a secessionist. Since John McCain pals around with Sarah Palin, John McCain is a secessionts and supports all of the secessionist’s hatred of the United States.

Fact: “While still married to his first wife Carol, John McCain carried on a cross-country romance with Cindy Lou Hensley while he was still living with Carol: Court documents filed with their divorce proceeding indicate that they ‘cohabitated as husband and wife’ for the first nine months of the affair. Although McCain stresses in his memoir that he married Cindy three months after divorcing Carol, he was still legally married to his first wife when he and Cindy were issued a marriage license from the state of Arizona” (see RollingStone magazine, ‘Make-Believe Maverick, October 16, 2008’)
McCainsian Logic: Since John McCain performed adultery he supports adultery and it is one of the cornerstones of his campaign.

Fact: Banker Charlie Keating was convicted on 73 counts of fraud and racketeering for his role in the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s. Keating contributed $54,000 to McCain's Senate campaign in 1986. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts
McCainsian Logic – Since John McCain palled around with Charlie Keating, and accepted political donations from him, John McCain is a crook.

You see how this works? And I haven’t written anything about the $100+ million fortune McCain’s wife is set to inherit. And how many times have we read about all of her money in any newspaper? Since I don’t have access to the vast informational outlets that McCain has, it’s hard to quantify. Yet I would wager it’s much, much less than the number of times John Kerry’s wife’s assets were written about in the newspapers and discussed on TV while he was running for President.

Continued support of a known secessionist, adulterer and crook only serves to support the myopic ignorance of the fabled neo-conservative party.

[Larry]

Your being dense on purpose.
I said: if people come into your house firing weapons at your family you should defend yourself and figure out the mistake later.

But what Liddy said was "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." Liddy's advice that day was explicit: "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."

Your response is "Ruby Ridge, Waco, Gonzales"

I point out that in all three of those cases, the officers were executing valid warrants. Your response:


Seems to me shooting and burning people to death is a rather poor warrant execution.

Please, explain to me how I should interpret that other than an argument that uniformed police officers, in the execution of a legal warrant, should be intentionally killed if you disagree with the way they execute that warrant.


And FWIW, my opinion on Waco? The first assault was horribly, incompetently managed by a commander who wanted footage on the evening news worse than he wanted a successful mission.

And there was no valid reason whatsoever for the second attempted entry. No, I don't believe for a second that the FBI intended to kill everybody in the place. But I'm absolutely convinced that they knew that some of them would die. And there was no reason to enter that was compelling enough for some of them to die. IMO, those people died because they were making the FBI look bad on television.

But I also have to observe that the police were executing a lawful warrant, and the people in the compound were knowingly, illegally, violently, resisting them. Which causes me to resist the people who want to paint them as poor, innocent, victims who were intentionally murdered by imperial stormtroopers.

[Larry]

Okay, we all admit Ayers is a terrorist. Let's move on to the next topic:

Alright, everybody, this is a hijack!!!

[HogNose]

We have a winner.

Liddy is acceptable because he was found guilty by a jury and served some jail time.

.

....and Liddy has his "Stacked and Packed" calendars. Liddy wins. :silly:

http://www.naureenzaim.com/images/stacked.jpg

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So what you're saying is that now, he says that when he was telling people how to most efficiently kill uniformed law enforcement officers, he was actually only giving them legal advice? That all he was telling people with his advice on where to shoot them was simply a theoretical discussion of a homeowners legal rights for how to appropriately respond to a police clerical error?

(And, apparently that you believe that?)

Of course not. I am simply proving that it happened since no one seems to believe me when I cite actual events because everyone here is apparently 19.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This thread works as an attack on Liddy. It fails miserably as a defense of Ayers. Which is it intended to be?

It's a fairly basic intelligence test. Sort of like the argument about citing alcohol abuse as an argument for the legalization of hard drugs.

I do not defend Ayers. No one on the Left has defended Ayers' actions.

But Liddy gets awards, gets called a hero, and has John McCain go on his radio show and call him "an old friend." Why is that not an issue as well?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, I don't really care about the ATF quote. That's just Liddy being his typical idiot self.

I do care about the fact that he advocating murdering political opponents while an employee of the executive branch.

[Ivy94f]

sorry, double post.

[Ivy94f]

I can't believe that after america HEARD the republican party say that they were going to stop talking about the economy and attack Obama, that some ppl still debate the fake significance of this Ayers thing. Do you really believe that the McCain ppl believe this too? Of course not; they leaked their strategy and placed a cloud of suspicion on whatever they were going to talk about. Who knew they were going to bring up something we already heard a year ago? They don't believe in the significance of this loose association anymore than the dems do, but they have no choice but to try and attack their opponent. Sure its the exact same thing as Liddy, and politically a bad association to boot and they know it. There is no way ppl believe that McCain or any of the other repubs were so concerned about this association, so concerned that the american ppl should be aware of this association, that they waited until the end of the campaign to even mention it again?? Its a tactic and a ploy only. No real significance to it. The amusing part is that it forces supporters, pundits, etc to actually debate this issue on merit when those who GAVE this tactic to the public, know there's not much merit to it.

When someone tells you that they're going to go negative while they're in a losing position, is going to choose whatever they can use to make someone LOOK bad. If there was something actually there that WAS bad, its really a stretch to believe that they wouldn't harp on it early, even in a winning position. Before I even start fact-checking, I already know that this info is coming from a self-serving position and I can't just eat it up at face value. Lo, and behold, we see why not 24hrs after this was brought up by McCain...again. Even the pundits on tv can't seem to agree on what this means. Some say 'danger', some say 'judgment', some say 'honesty' or 'callous political ambition'. They don't care what it is, as long as there is some supporter comes up with his own reason. Here's a match, here's some paper, here's some twigs. I'm not saying that you should start a fire...I'm just saying..... we're cold and we're losing. I mean, are we really being serious here? Are there ppl really saying that this isn't the same thing? Or that this doesn't show one or all of the criticisms that were made about this Ayers thing? I would really like to hear more of how McCain thinks this is different (the letterman stuff was very revealing) and compare it to some of the answers here.