McCain was also on the board of a group that supported terrorists—oh, I’m sorry, freedom fighters who just happened to rape and murder people in the course of fighting for freedom—in Central America during the 1980s.  Yes, that’s right, McCain was involved in a group that was involved in Iran-Contra.

Where’s J2 to tell us that it’s horrible that Obama didn’t know that William Ayers had been a Weatherman 40 years ago, but it’s perfectly fine for McCain to directly support terrorists in Central America?

(swiped from Washington Monthly, where Steve Benen and Hilzoy are kicking ass these days)

Well, of course, criticizing McCain for helping Fowler isn’t as unfair as criticizing Obama for serving on a board with Ayers.  Nevertheless, it’s perfectly appropriate for a senator to express concern about a US citizen being held on capital charges in a coutnry with a poor human rights record, even if that person is a drug trafficker, and even if that person also ought to be tried on murder charges in the US.

Republicans are really more like pod people than replicants.

To be fair, it isn’t clear at all that McCain did anything wrong. He couldn’t have known about this guy Fowler’s possible status as a killer, and the article you linked to says there’s good reason to believe that Fowler was innocent of the Thai drug charges.

On the other hand, who wants to be fair? If they’re going to traffic in ridiculously tenuous guilt-by-association smears, they have no right to complain when it gets done to them.

If McCain is a racist this Fowler story doesn’t prove it.  The innuendo is completely unfair, which just a few clicks through the links show.  McCain sent the letter in 1991, when Fowler’s role in the 1965 Jackson shooting was not publicly known. 

From the Anniston Star, which I found through your links:

McCain also requested that the State Department look into Fowler’s claims that “his arrest was the product of a vendetta by a well-connected former member of the U.S. Army and advise me of its validity.”

Indeed, others agreed that Fowler’s work with military prosecutors had earned him enemies in Southeast Asia and may have led to his arrest in Bangkok in 1991.

In another letter dated Nov. 10, 1991, Army Maj. Jeffery Addicott, the chief prosecutor in the murder-for-hire plot, wrote to vouch for Fowler’s character and suggested he may have been framed for heroin trafficking by those he testified against.

www.annistonstar.com/showcase/2008/as-open-1007-jflemingcol-8j06v1257.htm

I am an Obama supporter but to try to slam McCain with this Fowler story is crap.

Wait wait wait. What’s this about Worf? The last thing Obama needs is to get drawn into the political quicksands that are the Klingon High Council. How many times did the House of Mogh get booted out before Worf joined the Martok coalition government at the end of the Dominion War? And let’s not forget about his awkward support for the Chancellorship of Gowron.

Obviously Obama’s still a better choice than McCain regardless, who might as well be a member of the Orion Syndicate (or the Ferengi Alliance if we’re being polite, lol) for all of his slimy financial ties. But there’s an old maxim in Chicago politics that Obama should remember: Qo’noS has no electoral votes.

Nice try, Jesse.  At least you were honest enough to describe Fowler as “potentially” racist and an “alleged” murderer. 

Was Ayers a “potential” terrorist?  Is he an “alleged” terrorist?  I know—irrelevant details.  That doesn’t matter when we’re trying to whip up the support for a candidate with a record like Obama. 

You’re going to somehow declare McCain a racist because of a letter he wrote on behalf of someone he’d never met?  You’re going to compare that to Obama sipping cognac with Bill Ayers in his living room?  You’re better than that, Jesse.

I guess only republicans are wingnuts.  The clever folks who post here with such zingers as “Republicants” and “pod people” are perfectly moderate, bi-partisan, reasonable folk.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where Sarah Palin is deeply, deeply concerned about the terrorists that Barack Obama has a deep and abiding love for.  There’s time for fairness in a month.

So call them on the stupidiity of the Ayers/Dorhn charge.  Don’t add to the pollution of unfair smears in the public debate.  This is ends justifying the means.  Suppose the election is close and Obama wins?  Will you say that the forces of right-wing nuttery evil is still so dangerous that we should continue to use unjust means to keep them at bay?

When presented with credible stories on Barrack Hussein Obama’s highly questionable connections(don’t forget Rev. Wright), this is the best you can come up with?

Oh, I posted an even better one in the very first comment:  McCain was on the board of an organization that supported terrorists in South America.  Go read that and then come back and tell us that McCain was right to directly support the Contras in the 1980s but Obama was horrible to speak to Bill Ayers 30 years after Ayers committed his crimes.

Obama sipped cognac when he was 8 years old?

that *is* scandalous.

*facepalm*

“Will you say that the forces of right-wing nuttery evil is still so dangerous that we should continue to use unjust means to keep them at bay?”

In a word, yes.  The oppressors cannot be oppressed, or somesuch.

“read that and then come back and tell us that McCain was right to directly support the Contras in the 1980s but Obama was horrible to speak to Bill Ayers 30 years after Ayers committed his crimes. “

Bill Ayers bombed this country.  Unfortunately, that is the difference that matters quite a bit to Reglar ‘Merkans. 

And, let’s not be too quick to admit that Obama ever spoke with Ayers knowing that he had committed acts of terrorism - Obama HQ hasn’t given the go-ahead for that yet.

Bill Ayers bombed this country.  Unfortunately, that is the difference that matters quite a bit to Reglar ‘Merkans.

Nice to know that “Reglar ‘Merkans” don’t care that McCain enabled the murders of thousands of people in Central America (including the rape and murder of Roman Catholic nuns) and contributed to our current problems with illegal immigration by displacing thousands more, but care deeply that the Weathermen might have managed to maybe injure a few people in America if they hadn’t been terminal fuckups who only managed to injure themselves.

If “Reglar ‘Merkans” are deeply concerned with domestic terrorism, why is McCain’s friendship with G. Gordon Liddy not an issue?  After all, Liddy enabled the murder of 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, and McCain acknowledges Liddy as a person friend, not just a professional acquaintance like Obama and Ayers.  Or is the Republican line that it’s perfectly fine for Liddy to tell people they should shoot law enforcement officers in the head, but it was horrible for Ayers to tell people they should blow up military officers?

Was Fowler an AZ constituent? Sometimes these requests may be sent out pro forma, and dealt with by aides.

If not a constituent, how did Fowler and McCain get connected? Campaign donor?

It’s enough that McCain voted against MLKJr day.

As for Rev. Wright, he’s a heck of a lot more useful to the community than the typical white End Times / Prosperity Gospel preacher.

“Nice to know that Reglar Merkans don’t even realize that Ayers was NEVER TRIED or NEVER CONVICTED of anything.”

That Ayer’s his admission of guilt a rather generous act, in that one needn’t speculate.  What a fellow he is, I say.

That Ayer’s his admission of guilt a rather generous act, in that one needn’t speculate.  What a fellow he is, I say.

If only McCain’s good friend, convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, could be so intellectually honest and admit his part in whipping up domestic terrorism and Timothy McVeigh.

Oh, but I forgot—you don’t think it’s really domestic terrorism if you’re blowing up federal buildings, do you?  At least not if the “right kind of people” are blowing them up and not Dirty Fucking Hippies like Ayers.

There is way more to the political spectrum than the Right and the Far Right and the Lunatic Fascist Right…

True. The Left, the Far Left, and the Lunatic Fascist Left.

“If only McCain’s good friend, convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, could be so intellectually honest and admit his part in whipping up domestic terrorism and Timothy McVeigh. “

I don’t really think that Mr. Liddy “whipped up” domestic terrorism.  And neither do you.

McVeigh bombed the Federal Building when Liddy was a green 56 years old.  It was only after this that Liddy and McVeigh formed a bar league softball team together and became BFFs.  Smearz!!!!

Ayers killed his best friend and girlfriend trying to build a bomb.  If he cared so much about justice, he’d have turned himself in instead of going underground building more bombs.

Mike, I appreciate your passion for what you believe.  But I’m pretty sure Professor Ayers would only give you a B- unless you’re willing to blow up a statue or something.

Pot-smoking and wife-swapping?  No, I think that was the White House during Clinton’s term.

Just curious…did Liddy ever apologize for telling people to shoot federal agents in the head?

I don’t really think that Mr. Liddy “whipped up” domestic terrorism.  And neither do you.

No, I really do think that telling your radio listeners multiple times to “Go for the head shot”  against law enforcement officers is whipping up domestic terrorism.  I think that Liddy and his little AM radio pals have the blood of those 168 people in Oklahoma City on their hands, not to mention the blood of those people at the Unitarian church in Knoxville and the blood of the Chair of the Democratic Party in Arkansas.  Convicted felon Liddy has a long history of making terroristic threats against his enemies, and his listeners sometimes carry out those threats.

You can whine about how it’s all in good fun and it’s just words and OMG First Amendment!, but Timothy McVeigh murdered over 100 people—including small children—because of the advice that Liddy gave him.

Liddy is an amoral, despicable person, and you’re the same for trying to pretend that condoning the murder of 168 of your fellow Americans is just a silly joke.

Just curious…did Liddy ever apologize for telling people to shoot federal agents in the head?

No, because Liddy doesn’t think domestic terrorism is wrong.  Funny how his supporters here can’t bring themselves to admit it.

Kate, guess you know all about Valerie Plame because you were with her undercover, or working with the CIA at the time.  No?  Really?

Horace? Have you ever heard of his radio show? The one were he talked about naming his shooting targets after the Clintons, and discussed the best methods for picking off ATF agents?

///O that is a low blow there, Ms. Kate.

/Obama/

“Well now, I see that this bottle of Covousier is nearly empty, which meanth our campaign season is nearly over- and to my baby Cindy M. out there, I thay leave the old coot and come be with a man who underthdanth you… So love to all the peopleth of America, a nation that I love, thith is Barak Huthein Obama, thaying that I hope to find you thnuggled in my protective armth on the morning of November 5th.”

//I need to find a way to work the word “thunuggled” into conversation more.

Shorter Trolz: we gotz storiez we believez!  We TROOLEE beeleevz! Who kneedz joodishal proceedingz, rulz of lawz, factz, realitiez, etz.

Mike, is this the intellectual firepower you refer to?

THis article is porbably old news for most here, but it really helped me to understand the McSame mindset - and it is one scary read.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print

Well, I expected someone to produce evidence that McVeigh listened to Liddy even once, reserving the construction of Liddy’s words aside for a moment.  Alas, I am left wanting.

If he cared so much about justice, he’d have turned himself in instead of going underground building more bombs.

If Liddy cared about justice, he’d apologize for calling for the murder of federal law enforcement officers.  And yet he never has.

Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in to authorities in 1980.  You did know that they’d turned themselves in, right, even though it wasn’t on your schedule?

Okay.  So Ayers is building a nail bomb (to kill people) with his best friend and girlfriend.  Unfortunately, the bomb goes off while they’re assembling it, and it kills his best friend and girlfriend, instead of the people they intended to kill.  Got it now.

BTW, what happened to the original title, “Civil Rights can march right up my POW ass”...?

I found it much more representative of the thinking here.

Well, I expected someone to produce evidence that McVeigh listened to Liddy even once, reserving the construction of Liddy’s words aside for a moment.  Alas, I am left wanting.

Ah, the retreat.  It’s not good enough that McCain’s good friend, convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, has never apologized for his advocacy of domestic terrorism.  It doesn’t matter that McVeigh’s target was agents from the ATF, the very people that Liddy advised his listeners to murder on multiple occasions.

No, if we don’t have video footage of McVeigh listening to Liddy’s show and taking notes, that’s proof positive that McVeigh never even heard of Liddy and came up with his idea of murdering ATF agents all on his own, completely independent of anything Liddy said, even though Liddy made his remarks about murdering ATF agents after Waco, the exact incident that McVeigh claimed triggered his plan to murder ATF agents in Oklahoma City.

Yes, all of that is completely unproven, unlike the assertions that Obama not only knew all of Ayers’ crimes but completely approved of all of them.  That’s the 100 percent gospel truth, right, Rumpy?

We actually stand for things.

That whole comment is possibly the best to ever appear on Pandagon.  Thanks, MikeEss.

Okay.  So Ayers is building a nail bomb (to kill people) with his best friend and girlfriend.  Unfortunately, the bomb goes off while they’re assembling it, and it kills his best friend and girlfriend, instead of the people they intended to kill.  Got it now.

Please point to the article where it says Ayers was in the building making the bomb when it exploded.  There are only two known survivors of the explosion—are you claiming that Ayers was there but somehow escaped without injury and without anyone seeing him?  Where is your evidence for this claim?

You also somehow keep forgetting that three people were killed, not two.  I have a feeling you don’t know nearly as much about this case as you claim to.

“If Liddy cared about justice, he’d apologize for calling for the murder of federal law enforcement officers.  And yet he never has.”

My recollection is that Mr. Liddy did not “call for the murder” of anyone.  His comments were directed to a hypothetical situation in which Federal Agents, acting under color of Law and without legitimate authority were to arrive at Liddy’s home at the direction of government officials for the purpose of forcibly depriving him of certain or other Constitutional Rights.  (i.e., if Janet Reno decided to summarily confiscate all of Liddy’s arms.)  In such a case, Liddy is well within our Grand American tradition along with such colonial-patriarchal-heteronormative-christianist fellows as General Washington and others who threw off the yoke of Olde King George.

My recollection is that Mr. Liddy did not “call for the murder” of anyone.

Really?  Shooting people in the head is not going to hurt them, it’s just going to sting a little?  Fancy that.

His comments were directed to a hypothetical situation in which Federal Agents, acting under color of Law and without legitimate authority were to arrive at Liddy’s home at the direction of government officials for the purpose of forcibly depriving him of certain or other Constitutional Rights.

Which was Tim McVeigh’s excuse for murdering 168 people with a car bomb in Oklahoma City.

You’re really not helping yourself here by arguing that McVeigh was justified in killing 168 innocent Americans because he thought the government was wrong to raid Waco.

Fresh from his banning from Obsidian Wings, ken the racist fuckwad troll takes his act to Pandagon.  What’s the over/under on Amanda getting bored with him here and the racist fuckwad has to find yet another new site to troll?

“Um, wasn’t McCain not only associating with bombers, but actually bombing people in the 1960s?”

I think we need to get this message out, perhaps in a Campaign Ad, as soon as possible.

“You’re really not helping yourself here by arguing that McVeigh was justified in killing 168 innocent Americans because he thought the government was wrong to raid Waco.”

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.  They’re tasty, like pie.  Mmmmm.

Meanwhile, we have Rumpole of Ruby Ridge, ready with the ‘gummint’s gonna enslave us all’ rhetoric that he had buried and forgotten the last seven and a half years.  Right on cue, you might say.

MY EYES!  Dammit, Mike!

“Meanwhile, we have Rumpole of Ruby Ridge, ready with the ‘gummint’s gonna enslave us all’ rhetoric that he had buried and forgotten the last seven and a half years.  Right on cue, you might say. “

Because you’ve been watching me ever so close for all those years.  Kind of creepy, fella.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.  They’re tasty, like pie.  Mmmmm.

Please point out where I’m incorrect.  You admit that Liddy said on the air that killing ATF agents after Waco was justified.  McVeigh took Liddy at his word and killed ATF agents, along with some “collateral damage,” as McVeigh called it.

You see nothing wrong with Liddy calling for ATF agents to be killed.  Therefore, you must not see anything wrong with McVeigh’s actions since his aim was to kill ATF agents, the people who both you and Liddy say gun-owning Americans would be totally justified in killing as long as you think at the time that it’s “self-defense,” which was McVeigh’s contention.

So you don’t care if people in Central America are killed, you don’t care if your fellow Americans are killed, and you really don’t care that McCain supports the people who advocated both of these things.  Where am I putting words in your mouth?

The funny part here, of course, is that Rumpy is making the exact same arguments about resisting a tyrannical government that Ayers and the Weathermen made to justify their actions and doesn’t even seem to realize it.

Was Ayers a “potential” terrorist?  Is he an “alleged” terrorist?

No, he is an exonerated terrorist.  In fact, among the members of the Weathermen who turned themselves in, Ayers is unique in not even being sentenced with probation or a fine.  All his charges were dropped.  Which is fancy legalese for “a judge decided he didn’t do anything wrong”.

Nice to know that Reglar Merkans don’t even realize that Ayers was NEVER TRIED or NEVER CONVICTED of anything.

Can we just admit that 75% of Americans, and 90% of Republicans,  didn’t know who Bill Ayers was a year ago?

I hope Obama is connected to Michael Dorn. How awesome would it be to have a Klingon in the White House? Very awesome.

“You admit that Liddy said on the air that killing ATF agents after Waco was justified.”

No, Liddy said that killing anyone, whether under cover of Law or not, who is an unjust agressor and acting without legitimate authority while in that act of agression may likely be justified in defense of life and liberty.  This happens to be well supported in our legal tradition, as well as in the history of the United States, most notably in its founding. 

“McVeigh took Liddy at his word and killed ATF agents, along with some “collateral damage,” as McVeigh called it.”

You can’t demonstrate even that McVeigh heard Liddy’s words, or any of Liddy’s words, much less that he grossly misconstrued them.

“So you don’t care if people in Central America are killed”

Contra or Sandanista?  Because you simply supported a different side of the same coin, which performed the same bad acts, at the same time.  The only difference is that McCain and Rumpole acknowledged and understood that the Sandanistas were being subsidized by the Soviets, whom we considered enemies of the United States.  You preferred the Soviet, because that’s what hipsters do to feel special.  Let’s just call it “real politique.”

“Which is fancy legalese for “a judge decided he didn’t do anything wrong”.”

Um, no.  No trial on the merits was had, so he was anything but “exonerated.”  Even a verdict of “Not Guilty” does not “exonerate” a criminal defendant.

“The funny part here, of course, is that Rumpy is making the exact same arguments about resisting a tyrannical government that Ayers and the Weathermen made to justify their actions and doesn’t even seem to realize it.”

In the non-internet world, where non-hipsters live, the fact that you reflexively move to equate the two without realizing this as a latent slander of the United States is funny.  I mean odd-funny, not laugh-funny.

“So Sarah Palin and her erstwhile portable brain and fuckbuddy Traitor Treason Todd Palin can declare Alaska an independent state and shoot all US Military Personnel, Coast Guard, US Marshalls, and FBI agents on sight, no questions asked?”

If and when they do, let me know.  In the meantime, I’ll rest on the representation that secessionist movements aim for States to legally secede from the United States, as is their right as implied from the process for ratification of the United States Constitution by the several States.

No, Liddy said that killing anyone, whether under cover of Law or not, who is an unjust agressor and acting without legitimate authority…

I always thought that in order to be “under cover of Law,” one needed to be under legitimate authority.  So, Mr. Rumpole, are you saying that the US Federal Government isn’t a legitimate authority?  Are you saying that the ATF is a rogue group?  I’m not following your reasoning in justifying exhortation to shoot federal agents.

Does anyone else see the irony in a poster using the name of a celebrated fictional defense attorney whose main guiding principle was the assumption of innocence arguing, for all intents and purposes, for the guilt of someone based on circumstantial evidence?

No, Liddy said that killing anyone, whether under cover of Law or not, who is an unjust agressor and acting without legitimate authority while in that act of agression may likely be justified in defense of life and liberty.  This happens to be well supported in our legal tradition, as well as in the history of the United States, most notably in its founding.

Which is exactly what McVeigh’s excuse was for murdering 168 people in Oklahoma City.  Again, I’m not really seeing you distancing yourself from McVeigh’s actions since you keep repeating that in your view they were justified actions.

I’m also surprised that you’re defending the peoples’ right to take up arms against the government so strongly since that’s what you’re holding against Bill Ayers.  I can’t figure out why you think Ayers was horrible to rise up against what he thought was a tyrannical government but McVeigh was totally justified in rising up against what he thought was a tyrannical government.  Please explain the difference.

Contra or Sandanista?  Because you simply supported a different side of the same coin, which performed the same bad acts, at the same time.  The only difference is that McCain and Rumpole acknowledged and understood that the Sandanistas were being subsidized by the Soviets, whom we considered enemies of the United States.

Ah, I hadn’t realized that the Roman Catholic nuns who were raped and murdered by right-wing death squads in El Salvador were proven to be Soviet agents, so their rape and murder was totally justified.  Glad to know that you think that raping and murdering nuns is totally okay as long as you think they’re being bankrolled by the Soviet Union.  Same goes for the thousands of innocent people who were caught in the cross-fire between your beloved Contras and the government of Nicaragua—I guess that if they didn’t want to be murdered by Contras, they should have been smart enough not to be born in Nicaragua.

By the way, do you remember what happened to that horrible, evil, Soviet-supported monster Daniel Ortega, the dictator of Nicaragua, or did you stop paying attention as soon as Oliver North gave you an erection by detailing how he subverted the Constitution and broke the laws of the United States to fight commies overseas?

In the meantime, I’ll rest on the representation that secessionist movements aim for States to legally secede from the United States, as is their right as implied from the process for ratification of the United States Constitution by the several States.

Uhm, no. It’s a pretty standard legal view, at least as far back as the Civil War, that there is no constitutional right of secession.

In the non-internet world, where non-hipsters live, the fact that you reflexively move to equate the two without realizing this as a latent slander of the United States is funny.

You’re the one who’s insisting that Timothy McVeigh was justified in killing 168 of his fellow Americans because he was resisting a tyrannical government, but that Bill Ayers is a moral monster for doing the same thing.

Ayers and McVeigh are on the same spectrum, though McVeigh killed 168 innocent people and Ayers only managed to get three of his own followers killed.  They were both resisting what they felt was a violent, tyrannical government that was oppressing the citizens of the United States.  The fact that they came from different sides of the political spectrum is meaningless since they had the same goals and chose essentially the same actions to achieve those goals.

And yet you think McVeigh was justified and Ayers was not.  Why?  I’d really like to know.

Um, no.  No trial on the merits was had, so he was anything but “exonerated.”

All charges against Ayers were dropped.  Which is about as exonerated as it gets in America.

Because you simply supported a different side of the same coin, which performed the same bad acts, at the same time.

I wasn’t aware that Mnemosyne was a prominent elected official at the federal level back during the Iran-Contra affair?  Wow.  Illustrious group of commenters here at Pandagon…

I’ll rest on the representation that secessionist movements aim for States to legally secede from the United States, as is their right as implied from the process for ratification of the United States Constitution by the several States.

OK, wait.  You’re a secessionist.  Why am I even talking to you?

“I always thought that in order to be “under cover of Law,” one needed to be under legitimate authority.  So, Mr. Rumpole, are you saying that the US Federal Government isn’t a legitimate authority?  Are you saying that the ATF is a rogue group?  I’m not following your reasoning in justifying exhortation to shoot federal agents.”

Well, let us remember that the Klan was involved in some Law Enforcement departments in the deep South a few decades ago.  Now, imagine you are a black gentleman, or a Freedom Rider, and the Sheriff/Granddragon purports to take you into custody for the crime of something that is not a crime.  Imagine that you know that the practice and procedure is for the Sheriff/Granddragon to secretly release you to the Klan in order to be “disappeared.”  If he attempts to forcibly take you into custody in his nifty Sheriff getup, do you go willingly simply because he is “the Law?”

Likewise, if the ATF comes to your doorstep, showing inordinate force, under the pretense of allegations of child molestation, but for the real purpose of confiscating your lawfully owned arms without Due Process, the ATF is acting unlawfully.  Further, in Liddy’s hypothetical, suppose that the Attorney General made an unlawful public pronouncement that possession of any and all firearms is outlawed and that all owners who do not actively surrender them by 10:00 A.M. are committing a felony.  Then the ATF shows up at your doorstep to take your arms by force, must you comply with the Attorney General’s unlawful demands?  Ideally, you would seek injunctive relief in the Courts, but that may not be available in such a case.

You’re all acting a bit silly now, I must say.

You’re all acting a bit silly now, I must say.

So it’s “silly” when we point out that you’ve been vehemently defending both Timothy McVeigh’s actions and the unconstitutional actions of the Reagan Administration when they secretly and illegally funded the Contras?

I guess that’s one way of putting it.  Especially once you realize you can’t defend your own positions.

Now, imagine you are a black gentleman, or a Freedom Rider, and the Sheriff/Granddragon purports to take you into custody for the crime of something that is not a crime.  Imagine that you know that the practice and procedure is for the Sheriff/Granddragon to secretly release you to the Klan in order to be “disappeared.”

Sorry, I missed the incidents during the Clinton Administration where people were being arrested, put in jail, and then secretly murdered.  Can you please give a few examples?  Please note that a shootout doesn’t count since, by definition, the people killed in a shootout haven’t been arrested.

Oddly, what you’re describing sounds like what was happening in El Salvador during the 1980s, along with several other South American countries.  Of course, we know it can’t have happened because the Salvadoran government was anti-Communist, so all of the children who were taken from their parents by the police and military, only to vanish forever, must have been Soviet agents, right?

Shorter Mnem: “Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no arms left.”

Shorter Rump-pole:  “Yes, I have.”

Mnem: “*Look!!*”

R: “It’s just a flesh wound.”

Sorry, I missed the incidents during the Clinton Administration where people were being arrested, put in jail, and then secretly murdered.  Can you please give a few examples?

Don’t worry, Rumpole of Ruby Ridge will produce his Clinton Death List, just as soon as he remembers where he put it when Obama clinched the nomination.  I’m thinking its either under his freshly printed copy of the Obama Death List or under his dusty copy of ‘The Black Helicopter Recognition Guidebook.’

Further, in Liddy’s hypothetical, suppose that the Attorney General made an unlawful public pronouncement that possession of any and all firearms is outlawed and that all owners who do not actively surrender them by 10:00 A.M. are committing a felony.  Then the ATF shows up at your doorstep to take your arms by force, must you comply with the Attorney General’s unlawful demands?  Ideally, you would seek injunctive relief in the Courts, but that may not be available in such a case.

Yes you must comply with the AG’s demands.  At that point, assuming legislation had been passed & that’s why the AG made such a declaration (also assuming that if the AG unilaterally made the declaration that the ATF would not follow those orders during the 30 seconds before the AG was removed from office), then the AG is making lawful demands.  Those demands may prove to be unconstitutional, but that’s why we have the Judiciary.  You are not justified to shoot for the heads of the ATF agents.  Your legal recourse is in the courts.  Should you win your constitutional challenge to the law, you may then be entitled to be compensated for any guns that were not returned to you.  But, should you start firing at the ATF, you would have to be considered a criminal, at the least, or a terrorist.

All this talk of Ayers’ activities misses the main point: The idea that Ayers’ actions in the 60s, whatever they may have been, somehow taints Obama now is laughable on its face.  This is all the more true (and doesn’t even take into account the fact that by the time Obama met him, Ayers had the endorsement of no less of a prominent Republican than Walter Annenberg [Nixon’s Ambassador to Great Britain and a close personal friend of Ronald and Nancy Reagan]) because the main purveyor of this swill told a separatist group this summer to keep up the good work.

This is a live video of what John McCain did while in Vietnam.
Warning, extremely graphic and violent in every way imaginable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0&feature=related

After crashing, the locals that found John McCain beat him almost to death because he flew missions like the one depicted above.
Interesting to note:
While many pilots were spared having to confront the aftermath of the napalm bombing of villages, John S. McCain was able to witness it first hand during an ordinance ‘mishap’ involving his airplane during a carrier launch where the napalm burned many of his co-workers alive in front of him.
His command, recognizing the damage such a scene would do to a human, suggested he take a leave. But John after short consideration decided to request a quick transfer so he could continue his bombing missions.

I wonder if he is fit to be President.
I admire Mr. McCain for his tenacity when confronted with an unpleasant task. I’m impressed that the US military is able to churn out people that are willing to do really nasty things to others. But I am constantly astounded that people like John McCain would be allowed anywhere near the controls of our military organization. I think a more likely place for him is in veteran’s affairs, advocating for victims of PTSD.

Obama was eight in 1970, when the house was blown up by Ayers’ friends.

The bottom line is this: Ayers is the son of a CEO who went through an early criminal phase only to emerge reborn as a bourgeois college professor and community activist. Like many Republicans I could name, his privilege and connections bought him a second chance. He seized the opportunity to change his life.

What Ayers did 40 years ago has zero relevance to Barack Obama’s fitness for office. By the time Obama met Ayers, he was a pillar of the Hyde Park establishment, a minor municipal political power broker, and a respected academic. He wasn’t a dangerous radical.

Obama didn’t even know that Ayers had a sinister past.

The guy had a coffee klatsch for an early Obama campaign over a decade ago. If this is the worst you can say about Barack Obama, the man is a friggin’ saint.

Pot-smoking and wife-swapping?  No, I think that was the White House during Clinton’s term.

ken on 10/07 at 03:21 PM

Wow. ken is still mad at Clinton for smoking a joint & getting a blowjob.

I told you right-wing trolls were touched <strike>by genius</strike> in the head.