It's not terrorism when I agree with it

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

Looks like you are leaping to another conclusion - just like you did with your ""McCain volunteer attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh "" thread.

Try again.

maybe jumping to conclusions is better than lying like you did with your attempted apologism.

Apologism, CAD?

Sarah Palin refused to condemn abortion clinic bombings where people have been killed and maimed. She declined to denounce them as 'domestic terrorists'.

You are putting words in my mouth that are not there.

Can you see which finger I'm directing to you?

And? IMO she should have condemned it but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to lessen the bombings by Ayers with falsehoods.


Aww... having issues today?

Ayers isn't in the election.. he is being used as a way to use guilt by association to condemn obama for something that was done when Obama was a child.

The same people trying to tie these 2 together and calling Obama a terrorist by association with a former terrorist then comes on tv and refuses to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists.

Do you not see the problem here?

If you attack someone and then defend that same behavior if it is one of your friends or beliefs that is involved, you look RIDICULOUS!

So? I wasn't talking about the election. This is about labeling domestic terrorists - terrorists. People here seem to be up in arms about Palin not instantly calling abortion bombers as terrorists yet calling Ayers one. Well, he is one, just as the abortion bombers are. And I agree, those who play apolgist for one while condemning the other do look ridiculous.

Yes he is one and yes abortion bombers. It is normal to be deeply concerned that she hesitates and refuses to call them terrorists just because she has a belief system in line with what they are doing. That is the problem here.

What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Ayers was less of a terrorist because he has reformed.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Both are terrorists IMO. I suspect that if you ask Palin straight up she would agree. Without the entire context of the conversation she was in, believe she was trying to point out Ayers is a terrorist.

And as for Palin being the fuiture of the Republican party, well perhaps. If nothing else, the left absolutely are terrified of who she is and what she stands for. It is evidently very threatening to our leftist friends here and elsewhere.

Terrified? No, I am loving every minute this idiot gets in the public eye, if she is truly the future of the gop, you are fucking screwed.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Both are terrorists IMO. I suspect that if you ask Palin straight up she would agree. Without the entire context of the conversation she was in, believe she was trying to point out Ayers is a terrorist.

And as for Palin being the fuiture of the Republican party, well perhaps. If nothing else, the left absolutely are terrified of who she is and what she stands for. It is evidently very threatening to our leftist friends here and elsewhere.

Whether you like it or not, Palin now represents a degradation in political discourse and many people are rightly offended by it. To relegate this to a mere "leftist" issue is to misunderstand the current sentiment in America, imo, and this is precisely why McCain has suffered so dearly for it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If McCain is the target, Palin was the missile, and a very accurate one.

lol. so true

 

[jackschmittusa]

Her refusal to accept the label of terrorist for abortion clinic bombers radically highlights how her extreme religious views color her thinking.

Sorry folks, but she is a religious nut first, politician, hockey mom, etc. are further down the list of ingredients which make her what she is.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ohnoes

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I wonder if these supposed bombers were "respected" members of the community and had done it "years ago" if they should be called terrorists...

I don't know, did they become a preeminent source on education reform & a professor?

Probably not but is being a professor absolve one from being a terrorist? What is the standard for absolution since there seems to be one for Ayers?

Really? So where did Palin - THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD - absolve Ayers? I guess I missed that part.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I imagine that in the future there may be a phrase that goes something like "Man, he was doing great, but then he really picked a Palin!"

"Dude, don't Palin yourself. You had the world in your hands!"

 

[RightIsWrong]

I'm wondering if anyone else is picking up on the fact that McCain doesn't trust her enough to do a solo interview that isn't with someone who's primary source of income comes from Rupert Murdoch.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

not at all. The point is that the intention with Weatherman bombings was not to harm innocents.

clinic bombings are directed at killing as many people as possible.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

not at all. The point is that the intention with Weatherman bombings was not to harm innocents.

clinic bombings are directed at killing as many people as possible.

See, this is where having Asperger's help a lot. That or just being very lawyerly and looking at the literal text.

Our dear Sarah said that only people that look to harm innocents are terrorists. You clearly can't call someone bombing an abortion clinic a terrorist because there are not innocents there. You have a whorehouse full of sinners is what you have and they must be punished.

But not by terrorism....just administer some down home Old Testament justice.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: dphantom
Both are terrorists IMO. I suspect that if you ask Palin straight up she would agree. Without the entire context of the conversation she was in, believe she was trying to point out Ayers is a terrorist.

And as for Palin being the fuiture of the Republican party, well perhaps. If nothing else, the left absolutely are terrified of who she is and what she stands for. It is evidently very threatening to our leftist friends here and elsewhere.

Whether you like it or not, Palin now represents a degradation in political discourse and many people are rightly offended by it. To relegate this to a mere "leftist" issue is to misunderstand the current sentiment in America, imo, and this is precisely why McCain has suffered so dearly for it.

/agree, and not only the left are terrified of this woman, Ind's like myself are as well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

Looks like you are leaping to another conclusion - just like you did with your ""McCain volunteer attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh "" thread.

Try again.

maybe jumping to conclusions is better than lying like you did with your attempted apologism.

Apologism, CAD?

Sarah Palin refused to condemn abortion clinic bombings where people have been killed and maimed. She declined to denounce them as 'domestic terrorists'.

You are putting words in my mouth that are not there.

Can you see which finger I'm directing to you?

And? IMO she should have condemned it...[snip]

Cad, do you really think she would EVER condemn it as terrorism? She says "unacceptable" and "would not be condoned" but if it's involving bombs and it's unacceptable, then why wouldn't she classify it as terrorism? Answer: She will stop just short of calling it terrorism because it furthers her Christian cause against abortion.

I just don't see how you can vote for a radical social conservative like this. Ever.

I don't know if she ever would. All I know is that I condemn it as terrorism.

Again - I'm not voting for McCain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks
You want to play games with words? Ayers never planted a bomb that killed anyone. Should I accuse you of lying?

Ayers wasn't a bomb designer? Hmmm..... from what I remember reading - he was.

non-sequitur much?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So? I wasn't talking about the election. This is about labeling domestic terrorists - terrorists. People here seem to be up in arms about Palin not instantly calling abortion bombers as terrorists yet calling Ayers one. Well, he is one, just as the abortion bombers are. And I agree, those who play apolgist for one while condemning the other do look ridiculous.

Still spinning? You can't find someone who says Ayers wasn't a terrorist. No one is apologizing for Ayers, they are simply illustrating the ridiculousness of Palin's position. Ayers didn't kill anyone, clearly a terrorist. Abortion bombers who kill, not terrorists.

Hey look who's playing word games. Here is the post where the Ayers terrorist bombing came in. You look to be the one with the strawman BS here.

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

Looks like you are leaping to another conclusion - just like you did with your ""McCain volunteer attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh "" thread.

Try again.

maybe jumping to conclusions is better than lying like you did with your attempted apologism.

Apologism, CAD?

Sarah Palin refused to condemn abortion clinic bombings where people have been killed and maimed. She declined to denounce them as 'domestic terrorists'.

You are putting words in my mouth that are not there.

Can you see which finger I'm directing to you?

And? IMO she should have condemned it but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to lessen the bombings by Ayers with falsehoods.

You want to play games with words? Ayers never planted a bomb that killed anyone. Should I accuse you of lying?

You're trying to distract from the issue. Palin thinks Ayers is a terrorist even though HE didn't kill anyone. She thinks abortion clinic bombers who actually DO kill people are not terrorists.

There is no rationale for this distinction other than that she personally feels blowing up abortion clinics isn't terrorism.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: dphantom
Both are terrorists IMO. I suspect that if you ask Palin straight up she would agree. Without the entire context of the conversation she was in, believe she was trying to point out Ayers is a terrorist.

And as for Palin being the fuiture of the Republican party, well perhaps. If nothing else, the left absolutely are terrified of who she is and what she stands for. It is evidently very threatening to our leftist friends here and elsewhere.

Whether you like it or not, Palin now represents a degradation in political discourse and many people are rightly offended by it. To relegate this to a mere "leftist" issue is to misunderstand the current sentiment in America, imo, and this is precisely why McCain has suffered so dearly for it.

/agree, and not only the left are terrified of this woman, Ind's like myself are as well.

A strong, successful women I would think would be embraced by all. You cannot be stupid to get to where she is, man or woman. Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin yet she is now a respected commentator. Quayle was a complete idiot yet has gone on to be quite successful in his work life.

So I personally have no problems with Palin. From what I see, she reminds me of many of the successful women I grew up around and currently work with. If she does not toe the lefts' line on how a woman should act, so be it. It's about time a woman is recognized for who she is, not what another man thinks she should be.

 

[shocksyde]

Let's make this thread simple:

Ayers was a terrorist. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Palin is a complete moron.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

Looks like you are leaping to another conclusion - just like you did with your ""McCain volunteer attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh "" thread.

Try again.

maybe jumping to conclusions is better than lying like you did with your attempted apologism.

Apologism, CAD?

Sarah Palin refused to condemn abortion clinic bombings where people have been killed and maimed. She declined to denounce them as 'domestic terrorists'.

You are putting words in my mouth that are not there.

Can you see which finger I'm directing to you?

And? IMO she should have condemned it but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to lessen the bombings by Ayers with falsehoods.


Aww... having issues today?

Ayers isn't in the election.. he is being used as a way to use guilt by association to condemn obama for something that was done when Obama was a child.

The same people trying to tie these 2 together and calling Obama a terrorist by association with a former terrorist then comes on tv and refuses to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists.

Do you not see the problem here?

If you attack someone and then defend that same behavior if it is one of your friends or beliefs that is involved, you look RIDICULOUS!

So? I wasn't talking about the election. This is about labeling domestic terrorists - terrorists. People here seem to be up in arms about Palin not instantly calling abortion bombers as terrorists yet calling Ayers one. Well, he is one, just as the abortion bombers are. And I agree, those who play apolgist for one while condemning the other do look ridiculous.

Yes he is one and yes abortion bombers. It is normal to be deeply concerned that she hesitates and refuses to call them terrorists just because she has a belief system in line with what they are doing. That is the problem here.

What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Ayers was less of a terrorist because he has reformed.

Uhh... people here are suggesting that since time had passed and that he's a professor that he's not a terrorist. I was pointing out that if that is the standard used for Ayers - can it not be used for abortion bombers?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Let's make this thread simple:

Ayers was a terrorist. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Palin is a complete moron.

:thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ohnoes

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I wonder if these supposed bombers were "respected" members of the community and had done it "years ago" if they should be called terrorists...

I don't know, did they become a preeminent source on education reform & a professor?

Probably not but is being a professor absolve one from being a terrorist? What is the standard for absolution since there seems to be one for Ayers?

Really? So where did Palin - THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD - absolve Ayers? I guess I missed that part.

ohnoes brought up that he is now a professor. Does that absolve ayers? I was questioning the reason he thought he needed to post that.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

Looks like you are leaping to another conclusion - just like you did with your ""McCain volunteer attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh "" thread.

Try again.

maybe jumping to conclusions is better than lying like you did with your attempted apologism.

Apologism, CAD?

Sarah Palin refused to condemn abortion clinic bombings where people have been killed and maimed. She declined to denounce them as 'domestic terrorists'.

You are putting words in my mouth that are not there.

Can you see which finger I'm directing to you?

And? IMO she should have condemned it but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to lessen the bombings by Ayers with falsehoods.


Aww... having issues today?

Ayers isn't in the election.. he is being used as a way to use guilt by association to condemn obama for something that was done when Obama was a child.

The same people trying to tie these 2 together and calling Obama a terrorist by association with a former terrorist then comes on tv and refuses to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists.

Do you not see the problem here?

If you attack someone and then defend that same behavior if it is one of your friends or beliefs that is involved, you look RIDICULOUS!

So? I wasn't talking about the election. This is about labeling domestic terrorists - terrorists. People here seem to be up in arms about Palin not instantly calling abortion bombers as terrorists yet calling Ayers one. Well, he is one, just as the abortion bombers are. And I agree, those who play apolgist for one while condemning the other do look ridiculous.

Yes he is one and yes abortion bombers. It is normal to be deeply concerned that she hesitates and refuses to call them terrorists just because she has a belief system in line with what they are doing. That is the problem here.

What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Ayers was less of a terrorist because he has reformed.

Uhh... people here are suggesting that since time had passed and that he's a professor that he's not a terrorist. I was pointing out that if that is the standard used for Ayers - can it not be used for abortion bombers?

And as I asked earlier, could you please quote some of those claiming such?

They might be saying that he has since reformed, is a professor, and has been voted citizen of the year since... they might claim that obama has briefly associated with him way post terrorist acts and therefor Obama is not a terrorist. No one has EVER said he wasn't a terrorist though.

If you are asking if reforming absolves you of past crimes... no. However abortion bombers are known for killing people in the process whereas the weather underground did not. This would be the only difference.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Let's make this thread simple:

Ayers was a terrorist. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.

So Ayers "was" but clinic bombers "are"?

What makes him "was" but the others "are"?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: dphantom
Both are terrorists IMO. I suspect that if you ask Palin straight up she would agree. Without the entire context of the conversation she was in, believe she was trying to point out Ayers is a terrorist.

And as for Palin being the fuiture of the Republican party, well perhaps. If nothing else, the left absolutely are terrified of who she is and what she stands for. It is evidently very threatening to our leftist friends here and elsewhere.

Whether you like it or not, Palin now represents a degradation in political discourse and many people are rightly offended by it. To relegate this to a mere "leftist" issue is to misunderstand the current sentiment in America, imo, and this is precisely why McCain has suffered so dearly for it.

/agree, and not only the left are terrified of this woman, Ind's like myself are as well.

A strong, successful women I would think would be embraced by all. You cannot be stupid to get to where she is, man or woman. Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin yet she is now a respected commentator. Quayle was a complete idiot yet has gone on to be quite successful in his work life.

So I personally have no problems with Palin. From what I see, she reminds me of many of the successful women I grew up around and currently work with. If she does not toe the lefts' line on how a woman should act, so be it. It's about time a woman is recognized for who she is, not what another man thinks she should be.

My god you're pathetic. 'toe the line to what lefts think a woman should behave like'? Did you eat lead paint chips for fun? She will disappear into the background shortly after Nov 5th, and be remembered only by pointing out her numerous verbal blunders, and, depending on how troopergate goes, her conviction of abuse of power as a governor.
She is fake, her folksiness is fake, she's a high glossed barbie doll who tried to pander to middle class america, pretending she is, when she clearly is not.
I know numerous successful women where I work, and not 1 of them seem 1/10000 as intellectually vacant as caribou barbie.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dphantom
A strong, successful women I would think would be embraced by all. You cannot be stupid to get to where she is, man or woman. Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin yet she is now a respected commentator. Quayle was a complete idiot yet has gone on to be quite successful in his work life.

So I personally have no problems with Palin. From what I see, she reminds me of many of the successful women I grew up around and currently work with. If she does not toe the lefts' line on how a woman should act, so be it. It's about time a woman is recognized for who she is, not what another man thinks she should be.

Your revisionism is astounding. Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin? Ferraro was a civil lawyer who was appointed Assistant District Attorney for Queens, NY in 1974, and in 1977 was named the head of the Special Victims Unit. In 1978 she ran for a seat in Congress and won. She was re-elected twice and had served as a congresswoman for almost 6 years when she was selected by Mondale for VP.

As to Quayle, he had the lowest approval rating when selected for VP and polls showed a majority of americans thought he wasn't qualified for the position. In fact, Palin is the first VP to poll lower than Quayle.

Do you think that if you just post something and say it that it becomes true?

Palin is unquestionably not qualified to be president. Unquestionably. She has not dedicated one minute before she was selected by McCain on pondering national/international issues. She has shown zero knowledge of the issues beyond talking points. She has been sequestered from the press because every time she answers any question she demonstrates her ignorance.

I don't think she is a stupid woman by any means, she is merely not ready for the job she agreed to campaign for.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Let's make this thread simple:

Ayers was a terrorist. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.

So Ayers "was" but clinic bombers "are"?

What makes him "was" but the others "are"?

He was because it was 40 years ago.

They "are" just because that is what is assumed by the way the question was put:

"Are abortion clinic bombers terrorists?"- Yes they ARE.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Let's make this thread simple:

Ayers was a terrorist. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Palin is a complete moron.

So Ayers "was" but clinic bombers "are"?

What makes him "was" but the others "are"?

You're like that drunk asshole at a bar that goes around looking for a fight. AYERS AND ABORTION CLINIC BOMBERS ARE (ARE, ARE, ARE) TERRORISTS.

Better?

Edit: Re-added "Palin is a complete moron."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The only people killed in Weatherman bombings were themselves.

And that makes it ok... :disgust:

Looks like you are leaping to another conclusion - just like you did with your ""McCain volunteer attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh "" thread.

Try again.

maybe jumping to conclusions is better than lying like you did with your attempted apologism.

Apologism, CAD?

Sarah Palin refused to condemn abortion clinic bombings where people have been killed and maimed. She declined to denounce them as 'domestic terrorists'.

You are putting words in my mouth that are not there.

Can you see which finger I'm directing to you?

And? IMO she should have condemned it but it doesn't change the fact that you tried to lessen the bombings by Ayers with falsehoods.


Aww... having issues today?

Ayers isn't in the election.. he is being used as a way to use guilt by association to condemn obama for something that was done when Obama was a child.

The same people trying to tie these 2 together and calling Obama a terrorist by association with a former terrorist then comes on tv and refuses to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists.

Do you not see the problem here?

If you attack someone and then defend that same behavior if it is one of your friends or beliefs that is involved, you look RIDICULOUS!

So? I wasn't talking about the election. This is about labeling domestic terrorists - terrorists. People here seem to be up in arms about Palin not instantly calling abortion bombers as terrorists yet calling Ayers one. Well, he is one, just as the abortion bombers are. And I agree, those who play apolgist for one while condemning the other do look ridiculous.

Yes he is one and yes abortion bombers. It is normal to be deeply concerned that she hesitates and refuses to call them terrorists just because she has a belief system in line with what they are doing. That is the problem here.

What is your point? No one has ever claimed that Ayers was less of a terrorist because he has reformed.

Uhh... people here are suggesting that since time had passed and that he's a professor that he's not a terrorist. I was pointing out that if that is the standard used for Ayers - can it not be used for abortion bombers?

And as I asked earlier, could you please quote some of those claiming such?

They might be saying that he has since reformed, is a professor, and has been voted citizen of the year since... they might claim that obama has briefly associated with him way post terrorist acts and therefor Obama is not a terrorist. No one has EVER said he wasn't a terrorist though.

If you are asking if reforming absolves you of past crimes... no. However abortion bombers are known for killing people in the process whereas the weather underground did not. This would be the only difference.

Uhh... again, I didn't say people didn't say he was a terrorist. But people now are suggesting his isn't a terrorist. Was vs is. Ofcourse as I just asked another poster - why is he "was" and other "are"? Get it yet?

And again, the Wethermen DID kill people. You people need to stop lying about their destruction. So since you suggest that it was the "only difference" - can you now admit(knowing they did kill people) they are the same?