You have got to be one of the most thick-headed wingnuts to come along here in a while. I guess that's something to be proud of...

"Were you ever nice?" - No. Not to you.

"That is another liberal delusion." - How do you know I'm a liberal?

"I made my point about the article that is a disgrace." - Believe me, you should have stopped there.

"A personal argument with you will get us nowhere." - Then go away, please.

"After all for there to be somebody called The Messiah there must be believers; obviously you are one of them." - This is the sort of stupid shit that disqualifies everything else you say.

One last question for you, because you're getting to be quite a bore:

Since we don't know who you are, can you prove to us that you are not a terrorist? I don't care if you have no record of criminal or terrorist activity - that doesn't prove that you will not ever in the future commit a terrorist act. What proof do you have that you will never become a terrorist? Since you cannot prove that you will never commit a terrorist act, is it then safe to assume that you are a terrorist - you know, to allow us to take necessary pre-emptive measures?

Cheers.

Try developing a sense of humor.

Why remain such a sour puss, sir?

One out of every ten librals has a sense of humor.

Just look at the Colonel, A.J. Calhoun, sir. Yes, he or she is very funny! Very funny, indeed!

If you get a sense of humor,sir, you can stop taking your silly self so seriously, and then you could look at the world objectively, with less emotional baggage. Your politics might even evolve away from your leftish illusions, if you get a sense of humor, sir.

Try developing a sense of humor.

I'm sitting here reviewing my posts and chuckling. I'm laughing at you, wingnut. That counts.

Have you considere getting yourseld a girlfriend, sir?

Lots of babes like Bernadine just waiting there on face book for you to show up, Wally, sir!

There are lots of Obama sightings.

He travels in a convoy of big black vehicles, but it is still confusing. There is always a dummy or look alike black convoy with Mister Peanut, and it's hard to tell them apart.

Re all the back and forth. Why don't you all just take it outside? You're fighting old battles. It's destructive and unenlightening.

I appreciated the reminder by danielet that Rev. Wright was a Marine, thereby earning his anger at the many sins and failures of our great democracy, while Ayers, Shapiro, and others like us managed to avoid military service, even if our avoidance was based on deeply felt principle and strenuous objection to the war.

It turns out that I may have passed both Ayers and Shapiro on the Diag or South U in Ann Arbor. I watched the Johnson resignation speech with a group of fellow graduate students in an apt. on N State, though we didn't pour onto the streets. My daughter took her first steps in Fort Bragg CA the day we heard the news of Robert Kennedy's assassination, and we watched the riotous demonstration in Chicago back in Ann Arbor. All that turmoil ushered in many bleak years.

Just as many of us knew from day 1 that the Bush administration was bad news and the invasion of Iraq dangerous and unjustified, many of us in the early 60's were opposed to the murder and destruction the U.S. was raining down on Vietnam. Ayers, Dohrn and others were just more reckless, energetic, and irresponsible in their anti-war activities than most of us. Others now in public life served in the military in Vietnam but later expressed more regret or objection to the use of American military power than has Sen. McCain, who is still fighting that war. I'm thinking of Sen. Jim Webb who wrote some searing war novels (I read "Fields of Fire") and Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, who has written frequently and at length against the Bush administration's military adventurism (see "Limits of Power:The End of American Exceptionalism").

Others have never expressed public regret, despite much blood on their hands. I think especially of Henry Kissinger, the architect of the bombing of Cambodia that ultimately resulted in the deaths of millions. Ayers and Dohrn have devoted their lives to doing quiet good whereas Kissinger has made millions from his continued involvement in the national security state.

Here's wishing our new president all the best.

Quoting from "I Was There":

Ayers still brags that he is an anarchist/marxist and says openly that he feels he and his compatriots did not do enough. Just because he speaks in measured tones does not mean that he is not the same morally arrogant, despicable man he was back then. Any progressives/liberals that excuse his behavior are being conned. Again. The last thing we need is to align ourselved [sic] with these radicals.

While I agree with your premise--that the Weather Underground may well have undermined what might have been a successful and peaceful peace movement--your final paragraph undermines your argument. Clearly, you did not read the interview.

That is, it seems that you don't need any new facts because you've already made up your mind.

I don't believe Ayers says or ever has said--openly or otherwise--that he feels that "they" didn't do enough. If you have evidence that shows this to be anything more than an oft-repeated misquote, originally published on 9/11/2001 for sensationalist reasons, please provide the evidence.

BTW, I was there, too. I don't agree with the radical movements of the time, including the WU. I do recall clearly that it was a time of incomprehensible social upheaval. It is my opinion that the same thing is going on now, and has been going on since before 9/11/2001. The difference is that the media outlets are owned by those who have the power to suppress and to polarize.

For evidence I submit the identities of the same players in the Bush administration, e.g., Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney, who has often repeated that he believes that he and his group should have done more during that time, in Viet Nam, and here in these United States.