Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence, do you believe that someone who is truly anti-war would resort to violence to stop war. How does that look to those who you're trying to convince against the war.

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

[Nebe]

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady..

Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

"Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate"

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

He says she is a fit teacher of kids, because she was only "implicated", or because she served her time, or because the cost of her crimes to society was below the acceptable threshold, or because the number of innocent deaths at her hands is below the acceptable maximum, or because her crimes didn't instill widespread fear in the populace, or some other such reasoning.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The third alternative is that he genuinely believes that she is fit to mold the minds of our kids. And that's very likely, because to do othewise, he'd have to admit that liberals in academia indeed honored a mass murderer and a terrorist. And even though that's precisely what happened, he won't/can't (take your pick) concede that.

The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The fourth alternative is that you're so biased it's physiologically impossible for you to read something and understand intent. Hence, you respond based on what you feel must be true rather than assess the information at hand.

-spence

ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

ooooohh....POT vs. KETTLE

God, more irony.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While i most usually take spence's side on things, it appears that he is unable to say that what weather underground did was wrong and that if he was doing the hiring at that college, he would not have hired that lady.. Hes either trolling you guys to make you insane or he is simply paying the devil's advocate.

yeah, shouldn't you offer an option where he's being honest? otherwise he's working awfully hard to sound like an idiot

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.

-spence"

Sound about right?

Hysterical.

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.

So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...

So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.

Other than that, you were spot on.

I certainly said she was convicted of murder perhaps even more than once. The irony here is your accusation of "altering teh facts" only came about by taking my remarks out of thread context.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...

The answer to your question is there, do I have to repeat myself?

-spence