looking this over it seems that perhaps we are sufferring from the classic definition overload problem which often crops up.

I muse that there are perhaps 3 different meanings for guilt:

1) one is guilty of a crime: this requires conviction

2) one feels guilty: no indication that Ayers feels guilty

3) religious guilt: my sense is God will determine that

I am, however, having trouble establishing a definition of guilty for which it would appear applies to Ayers. He may have or may not have committed certain acts, but guilt requires a finding beyond the mere assertion that the act occurred.

Report comment to moderator

actyually from a civil context and from a libel context I suggest it does.

If Ayers was indeed guilty of a serious crime, and that is a debate in and of itself, failures by the government to properly follow the law appear to have made prosecution untenable.

As such, from a civil context Ayers is indeed innocent unless you can provide alternate data. that you have not done so despite repeated requests, I suggest, indicates that you don’t have such data.

Report comment to moderator

Being guilty of crimes but getting off on a technicality does not make one innocent.

Report comment to moderator

I do think that perhaps there is a team “data driven and logically structured”.

Arguing that Ayers will get a cabinet appointment would seem to deonstrater disqualification for the team.

Your point that Obama has only recently become President-elect is well posed. In fact, since he is not yet president, he has no direct power and the furor is in the main an attempt to read the tea leaves before his administration begins. In fact given the challenges he is facing, one can argue that it is unlikely any president facing these challenges could be a good president.

But as you note, we will have to wait and see.

Report comment to moderator

This is like arguing with Nick Peters. When I ask him about his statements, he reframes them in more moderate ways. However, the next time he is back on the same tracks he ran on again.

I don’t have time to keep a log of the absurd statements that many people make here and then conveniently forget about. Xion is by no means the worst in this regard.

I don’t think there is a “team” atheism as I used to say to Ed.

I don’t know if Obama will be a wonderful President or an awful President. Most people here seem to have already made up their minds before the guy has even been in office for a single day.

It’s a very difficult job in a world of turmoil and crisis.

I don’t think George Bush is a stupid person or an evil person, but I think he and his team went way off the tracks in a lot of ways and there are a lot of people here who even now can hardly bring themselves to admit how many problems the Bush administration has saddled us with and are constantly searching for scapegoats and excuses.

Report comment to moderator

Nobody denies Ayers was guilty of the crimes against property about which he brags. That’s unsatisfactory for this crowd here, though. Leavitt, Joel, and Xion are so desperate to find Ayers guilty of crimes against persons that they seem annoyed he didn’t kill or injure someone, just to make himself worthy of the inextinguishable hatred of future generations.

Yet these obsessive bloggers never truly cared what Ayers did until they discovered current political ramifications.

A terrorist is a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Violence in this context is a behavior involving physical force intended to hurt or kill someone.

Leavitt points out that the Oxford dictionary says violence can involve force against property. The Oxford dictionary also says violence can involve the mistreatment of language, or vehemence of feeling and expression, or natural events of great force. Arguing from definition, Peter says that vandalism is terrorism because the destruction of property is a form of violence. By Peter’s reasoning, my transgressions against language are terrorism because it does violence to reason. Screaming and yelling are terrorism because of violent emotions. Hurricanes are terrorism. Etc.

However, the kind of violence that terrorists use is linked to intimidation (”violence and intimidation”), which requires a threat of personal injury. Ayers’ destruction of monuments and unoccupied portions of federal buildings at night caused a lot of anger and embarrassment but not intimidation. In law, violence always personal injury and its threat. Therefore, the US government considered Ayers not to be a terrorist. He didn’t assault or threaten assault.

Report comment to moderator

of course not.

but they have already been raised, reviewed, and by the majority considered closed.

Without major new information, there is nothing of interest to either the electorate or the law here.

As such, it is perhaps a useful exercise to keep certain conservatives from causing serious difficulties elsewhere in the present political environment.

Report comment to moderator

The wingnut fringe has a hard time letting go of a smear, even if it’s a completely ineffective one.

Report comment to moderator

what an interesting position. Has anyone shown that:

1) Ayers was convicted of any crime?

2) that in the U.S. one is innocent until proven guilty?

3) that there is no evidence of any significant tie between Ayers and Obama?

4) that the electorate reviewed this prior to the election and appeared to consider it immaterial?

I thought not. It would seem then that your post is in error.

Report comment to moderator

Ayers can use any word he wants.

Within the context of the objectivity of civilian legal codes, it would appear that, unless you can show an error in my data, Ayers is innocent.

There still is the pesky issue of tieing Ayers to Obama, a point we have discussed before and for which it seemed you were able to marshall perilously little data.

Report comment to moderator