Redstate

I guess Sen. Coburn's just another typical white person.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Wasn't Charlie Gibson the host of the R Facebook debate that went really well?

He may be my favorite questioner for political debates.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I thought by the question "reporters should ask whether Sen. Obama understands the difference between pro-life politicians and people who set bombs to kill innocent people." you meant nobody had.

I think you're right about Gibson. He did get good reviews for an earlier stint. Not as good as these, though.

I missed the show. Somehow, it's easier to get the highlights here.

Anyway, whenever Ayers is mentioned, it should be pointed out that he is an admitted unrepentant bomber on hiatus, not a rehabilitated one. Don't cross him, Hannity. He prefers bombs to bombast.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations

Ayres is unrepentant for the people that he killed. Get real.

He's unrepentant for the bombings, because he wanted to reduce the number of deaths of US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians and was ineffective in doing so. But do you have evidence that he is unrepentant for the accidental deaths of his girlfriend and the other Weatherman who died while handling explosives? There are no other people anyone at all has accused him of killing.

...as well as the servicemen themselves, are proper targets for domestic terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Do not defend people like that again here.

Apologize for doing that. Now.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

is that individuals don't get to do violence to call attention to wrongs. War is for nations.

And like Ayers, you justify the bombings by saying they were preannounced. Is it OK to risk harming people, and to be certain of the destruction of property, because you want to make a point?

That's what free speech and the ballot box are for.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Ayers' wikipedia page doesn't mention the Fort Dix conspiracy, so I missed that and thought his bombings were not aimed at hurting people. And, no, I don't justify bombings that don't aim to hurt people; though I do try to evaluate intent. In this case, you all are right; one has to assume he was involved in that plan and therefore intended for people to die.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

So, you're OK with destroying property because you think it's a way to change people's minds? Would you mind posting your home address? I think somebody might like to change your mind.

That's allegorical, of course, but you see where using explosives is not anywhere near an approved debating technique. The very best thing that could be said for it is that it reduces discourse to survival of the most well armed.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations

One person supports changing the law in order for the state to dispense justice (whether you agree with the punishment is irrelevant).

The other tried to blow up buildings.

They ain't in the same ballpark.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!