It's not terrorism when I agree with it

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

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"?

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?

/CAD's head asplodes

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

And so ARE people who were involved in the Wetherman's acts. Ayers and his weatheman associates ARE terrorists.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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."

Yes, that's the whole point. There was no consistency with some of you. It could be subtle apologism or just plain ignorance but it was still there. If one is - then the other is. If one was, then the other was. Consistency please.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shocksyde

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"?

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?

/CAD's head asplodes

No, that's what my point was when I posted my original post in this thread.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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."

Yes, that's the whole point. There was no consistency with some of you. It could be subtle apologism or just plain ignorance but it was still there. If one is - then the other is. If one was, then the other was. Consistency please.

Now that you're feeling good about yourself, let's change the subject back to how much of a moron Palin is for claiming Abortion Clinic bombers AREN'T (and never were) terrorists. Discuss.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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?

If weathermen did kill people then I revise my previous statement. Just tense.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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."

Yes, that's the whole point. There was no consistency with some of you. It could be subtle apologism or just plain ignorance but it was still there. If one is - then the other is. If one was, then the other was. Consistency please.

Now that you're feeling good about yourself, let's change the subject back to how much of a moron Palin is for claiming Abortion Clinic bombers AREN'T (and never were) terrorists. Discuss.

How dare you try to kill CAD's attempt at DUH-version in this thread!!! :|

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

I give credit where due. Ferraro was unqualified to be VEEP using the standards set today for a woman.

Quayle was an idiot. Please read.

No, just because I post something I consider it an opinion. Feel free to challenge my opinion if you would like with an argument that proposes your position.

And quite frankly, IMO if Palin were a dem on the Obama ticket, you all would have your tongues dragging the floor following her every move and extolling how such a woman from nowhere can make it in America.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shocksyde

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"?

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?

/CAD's head asplodes

No, that's what my point was when I posted my original post in this thread.

No, your point was to derail this thread about Palin's hypocrisy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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."

Yes, that's the whole point. There was no consistency with some of you. It could be subtle apologism or just plain ignorance but it was still there. If one is - then the other is. If one was, then the other was. Consistency please.

Now that you're feeling good about yourself, let's change the subject back to how much of a moron Palin is for claiming Abortion Clinic bombers AREN'T (and never were) terrorists. Discuss.

I've already stated that she should have said they are.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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.

And so ARE people who were involved in the Wetherman's acts. Ayers and his weatheman associates ARE terrorists.

Either way it is still semantics.

Was Ayers a terrorist? Yes
Does this excuse him from being a terrorist? No.
Is Ayers a terrorist? Only if he currently does terrorist actions.

If Palin thinks he is a terrorist, why would abortion clinic bombers NOT be terrorists? THAT is the problem here.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shocksyde

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"?

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?

/CAD's head asplodes

No, that's what my point was when I posted my original post in this thread.

No, your point was to derail this thread about Palin's hypocrisy.

No, I already addressed it a long time ago. Try again...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: 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.

I give credit where due. Ferraro was unqualified to be VEEP using the standards set today for a woman.

Quayle was an idiot. Please read.

No, just because I post something I consider it an opinion. Feel free to challenge my opinion if you would like with an argument that proposes your position.

And quite frankly, IMO if Palin were a dem on the Obama ticket, you all would have your tongues dragging the floor following her every move and extolling how such a woman from nowhere can make it in America.

What are the "standards set today for a woman?" That she have some experience or at the very least awareness of the law and national issues? That she deign to speak to the press? Your statement, which you seem to be sticking to, is that Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin. This is utterly ridiculous and I listed her qualifications above. Your opinion on the matter is akin to McCain's recent "I think Governor Palin is the most qualified candidate for VP in recent history." Mind Boggling.

And quite frankly, IMO, if Palin were a dem we'd be thanking god Obama was a young guy but be scared shitless that some nut would off him and make her president. Again, there is majority agreement that Palin is not qualified for the office, and a host of highly respected life-long conservatives have come out and said the same, so your opinion that dems would fawn over such a pick is without any merit and contrary to reality.

 

[Engineer]

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

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

This.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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."

Yes, that's the whole point. There was no consistency with some of you. It could be subtle apologism or just plain ignorance but it was still there. If one is - then the other is. If one was, then the other was. Consistency please.

Now that you're feeling good about yourself, let's change the subject back to how much of a moron Palin is for claiming Abortion Clinic bombers AREN'T (and never were) terrorists. Discuss.

I've already stated that she should have said they are.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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.

Your quote states you think she should condemn the actions. That's not the same thing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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."

Yes, that's the whole point. There was no consistency with some of you. It could be subtle apologism or just plain ignorance but it was still there. If one is - then the other is. If one was, then the other was. Consistency please.

Now that you're feeling good about yourself, let's change the subject back to how much of a moron Palin is for claiming Abortion Clinic bombers AREN'T (and never were) terrorists. Discuss.

I've already stated that she should have said they are.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


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.

Your quote states you think she should condemn the actions. That's not the same thing.

hhbb said she didn't condemn it - I was responding to his post. I have no problem saying she is wrong to not call them terrorists. Sorry I don't fit into your ASSumptions and stereotypes.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: 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.

I give credit where due. Ferraro was unqualified to be VEEP using the standards set today for a woman.

Quayle was an idiot. Please read.

No, just because I post something I consider it an opinion. Feel free to challenge my opinion if you would like with an argument that proposes your position.

And quite frankly, IMO if Palin were a dem on the Obama ticket, you all would have your tongues dragging the floor following her every move and extolling how such a woman from nowhere can make it in America.

What are the "standards set today for a woman?" That she have some experience or at the very least awareness of the law and national issues? That she deign to speak to the press? Your statement, which you seem to be sticking to, is that Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin. This is utterly ridiculous and I listed her qualifications above.

And quite frankly, IMO, if Palin were a dem we'd be thanking god Obama was a young guy but be scared shitless that some nut would off him and make her president. Again, there is majority agreement that Palin is not qualified for the office, and a host of highly respected life-long conservatives have come out and said the same, so your opinion that dems would fawn over such a pick is without any merit and contrary to reality.

Standards for a woman to be a VP

1. Governor of a state counts for nothing
2. Manage a multi-billion dollar budget counts for nothing
3. Executive experience in small companies counts for nothing
4. Republican who took on her own party counts for nothing

Oops, those are all negatives. Hmmm, I guess any Republican woman has to be even more qualified than any man or dem woman to be considered qualified.

And from the perspective of executive experience, which seems to be all the rage this cycle, yes Ferraro was a noob compared to Palin. And I am not saying that out of any malice towards Ferraro. She is a fine woman who I listen to when I can.

Try to be as honest with yourself. You know if Palin was a dem and we Republicans were attacking her like you are, you would be all over us defending her.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: jonks
What are the "standards set today for a woman?" That she have some experience or at the very least awareness of the law and national issues? That she deign to speak to the press? Your statement, which you seem to be sticking to, is that Ferraro was an absolute noob compared to Palin. This is utterly ridiculous and I listed her qualifications above.

And quite frankly, IMO, if Palin were a dem we'd be thanking god Obama was a young guy but be scared shitless that some nut would off him and make her president. Again, there is majority agreement that Palin is not qualified for the office, and a host of highly respected life-long conservatives have come out and said the same, so your opinion that dems would fawn over such a pick is without any merit and contrary to reality.

Standards for a woman to be a VP

1. Governor of a state counts for nothing
2. Manage a multi-billion dollar budget counts for nothing
3. Executive experience in small companies counts for nothing
4. Republican who took on her own party counts for nothing

Oops, those are all negatives. Hmmm, I guess any Republican woman has to be even more qualified than any man or dem woman to be considered qualified.

Why must it be all or nothing? No one said it counts for nothing, it merely doesn't count enough. She was governor for less than 2 years of nearly the lowest populated state. Executive experience in small companies does count for nearly nothing however, since there's millions of americans with that "qualification." Taking on her own party is admirable, but again, counts for little with regard to knowledge of national/international issues. In those rare but endearing instances where she has been allowed to be filmed, and was asked to articulate her views on national or international policy, or supreme court decisions, or anything else for which her talking points weren't deep enough, she managed to convey just how unprepared for the job she is.

And from the perspective of executive experience, which seems to be all the rage this cycle, yes Ferraro was a noob compared to Palin. And I am not saying that out of any malice towards Ferraro. She is a fine woman who I listen to when I can.

Nice qualifier, but by that metric McCain is a noob too, so it's a pointless metric.

Try to be as honest with yourself. You know if Palin was a dem and we Republicans were attacking her like you are, you would be all over us defending her.

Like the way George Will, Kathleen Parker, Lincoln Chafee, Chuch Hagel, David Frum, Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, David Brooks, etc, etc, are defending her? The way that 55% of voters find her unqualified? The only ones who think she's qualified are the religious and low information voters she appeals to.

 

[manowar821]

Bitch, do I haveta bust out the motha fuckin dictionary, again?

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Sorry I don't fit into your ASSumptions and stereotypes.

You are one angry little man.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
So what is her definition of a terrorist?

This is mindboggling. The interviewer made a comparison between Ayers and abortion clinic bombers, and for no reason she said that abortion clinic bombers aren't terrorists, but doesn't regret calling Ayers one. Which is it? Did she just not understand the comparison?

No, she didn't say that.

For some reason it looks as though she this was some political *gotcha* question and tried not answering it.

She did skirt the question, but she did not say they weren't terorists, no need to distiort her words. It's bad enough she couldn't admit that abortion bombers are terrorists; there's no way they aren't.

Edit: BTW, terribly misleading thread title. She doesn't agree with abortion clinic bombings and says so, contrary to your thread title.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Sorry I don't fit into your ASSumptions and stereotypes.

You are one angry little man.

lol, if it helps you to sleep at night to think that.... then go right ahead.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Welcome to the world of politics. You realize most, including posters here, dismiss Ayers as "hisotry" but then jump up at Palins statement? Its a case, as it so often is, of whats good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.

This is an incredibly stupid post. Don't you get it? These posts you're talking about 'jump up' at Palin's statement due to the mass hypocrisy. She still considers Ayers a terrorist, but she doesn't consider abortion clinic bombers terrorists. Its neither or both.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
So what is her definition of a terrorist?

This is mindboggling. The interviewer made a comparison between Ayers and abortion clinic bombers, and for no reason she said that abortion clinic bombers aren't terrorists, but doesn't regret calling Ayers one. Which is it? Did she just not understand the comparison?

No, she didn't say that.

For some reason it looks as though she this was some political *gotcha* question and tried not answering it.

She did skirt the question, but she did not say they weren't terorists, no need to distiort her words. It's bad enough she couldn't admit that abortion bombers are terrorists; there's no way they aren't.

Fern

?I don?t know if you?re going to use the word ?terrorist? there,? she said.

She said she wouldnt use the word terrorist, I dont know how much clearer her view could me. But you can apologize for her like you do for most GOP issues.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
So what is her definition of a terrorist?

This is mindboggling. The interviewer made a comparison between Ayers and abortion clinic bombers, and for no reason she said that abortion clinic bombers aren't terrorists, but doesn't regret calling Ayers one. Which is it? Did she just not understand the comparison?

No, she didn't say that.

For some reason it looks as though she this was some political *gotcha* question and tried not answering it.

She did skirt the question, but she did not say they weren't terorists, no need to distiort her words. It's bad enough she couldn't admit that abortion bombers are terrorists; there's no way they aren't.

Fern

?I don?t know if you?re going to use the word ?terrorist? there,? she said.

She said she wouldnt use the word terrorist, I dont know how much clearer her view could me. But you can apologize for her like you do for most GOP issues.

I'll help you.

Here's how her view could be clearer, if she said "No, they are not terorists". I think that would be clearer.

She just said she didn't know if that's the right word. I don't know why she doesn't know, were it another person I could understand if they felt that was an incorrect term because of the legal technicalities of the matter (i.e., preferred to use specific/correct language) - Rudolph wasn't convicted of terrorism, it was homicide. However, I see no reason to expect she is aware of such details.

Bottom line - she didn't answer the question; contrary to assertions otherwise here

Fern