The real connection is the anti government sentiment that the GOP is leading. I suspect that if she’s drawn an over the top comparion, your headline may have been different. It’s ironic that you don’t see a connection. This special was on the very day that some gun nuts showed up in Washington and Virginia on the Anniversary of this tragic event. These ignorant racists picked that day. Why do you think they chose it?

Sorry for the double post!
The real connection is the anti government sentiment that the GOP is leading. I suspect that if she’d drawn an over the top comparison, your headline may have been different. It’s ironic that you don’t see a connection. This special was on the very day that some gun nuts showed up in Washington and Virginia on the Anniversary of this tragic event. These ignorant racists picked that day. Why do you think they chose it? All of this government anger is bullshit. Where were these people when Bush was in office? They didn’t vote for Obama which is the real reason they’re angry.

Wow that claymation of McVeigh looked just like Rachel Maddow. MSNBC did itself no favors by having that liberal shill , Mark Potok, provide narration. This guy finds local police stations as “radical” entities. He cries “wolf” every week, and MSNBC promotes him as if he has any credibility.

Where was all the talk of violent extremists when the left was protesting everything Bush did and carrying around signs picturing him as Hitler? Seems it’s ‘dangerous’ when tea partiers protest, but it wasn’t dangerous when the left was doing it.

She would have had an easier time linking mcveigh to muslims than to Tea Partiers, but, she never tried. Anyways, this fort hood cover up is getting very interesting and I’m sure she’ll be spiking that story.

There’s some real critical thinking going on here on this site. McVeigh wasn’t Muslim. He looks more like the teabaggers. Keep taking shots at Maddow but, she’s not the one who blew up a building. As for Liberals protesting Bush, it’s night and day. The reason that no one compares the rabid teabaggers to the left is because there is no comparison.

He looks more like the teabaggers
——–

Now, there’s some “critical thinking” if there ever was!

“Rachel Maddow’s McVeigh Tapes Fails To Draw Real Connection To Today’s Tea Party”

Because there is none.

However I do feel some sympathy for Ms. Maddow. This was her Magnum Opus and she failed miserably.

Tony! We still love ya!

Rachel’s version of Al Capone’s vault.

Numerous surveys of the “teabaggers” clearly show that a Timothy McVeigh would simply not be in their demographic.

The income, education, background, voting behavior/affiliation of the tax protesters is far different than McVeigh’s background.

This was so built up by MSNBC and it fell flat. Rachel’s bomb was bigger than McVeigh’s.

No doubt, it is sobering to have to admit that your ideological soulmate is a Right Wing Terrorist. It would tend to make one question his or her ideology. So, Righter and Jeff, rather than questioning their ideology, simply go into a permanent state of abject denial. What is so interesting to me is that they are probably in far more danger from Right Wing Terrorists than you or I. They may not be in bed together, but they are in the barcolounger the other side of the occasional table from the next McVeigh. It is a type of insecurity manifested by stridency and denial in Righter’s case and non-sensible grunting and cowardice by Jeff.

I don’t recall, did maddow give the marin county taliban boy the same coverage? Did she make the same effort tying hasan to terrorists? Quite the opposite if memory serves…

Rachel’s bomb was bigger than McVeigh’s.

—

That is suppose to be funny. The deaths of 168 people, including 19 young children is the source of amusement to you?

“Rachel Maddow’s McVeigh Tapes Fails To Draw Real Connection To Today’s Tea Party”

Uff; i’m starting to think that the people working for this website are just a bunch of idiots!

It is passing strange that some of the same people who lectured America (correctly so, I might add) not to lump all Muslims together because of the action of a group of radicals Muslims are quite happy to smear millions of Americans as somehow being connected to this monster McVeigh.

McVeigh has no more of a connection to conservatives than the anti-Vietnam War extremists did to liberals.

Trying to draw connections is, sorry, just partisan silliness.

TRRK, RM made it, let her take responsibility for it.

Using “roxsteady’s” “critical thinking” skills, obama must be a muslim. LOL!

BTW, where was MSNBC’s remembrance of the 9/11 attacks??

I don’t know about the people working on the website, but we know roxsteady is an idiot. Rachael Maddow gets paid to be an idiot. Poor rox does it for free.

The ? is which university will roxsteady falsely claim be be a graduate of today?

Munch says:
April 20, 2010 at 12:30 pm
TRRK, RM made it, let her take responsibility for it.

Please Munch, don’t pick on TRRK. He is trying so hard to pretend he is about it all as he tiptoes through the field of facts attempting to avoid any that might change his world view.

Fordam University! Go Rox!

TRRK, I take amusement in how RM was so desperately trying to tie TM to the Tea Party movement and yes, she BOMBED.

Dont be so hard on Rox. She’s an unemployed, angry african american who thinks everything bad in this world was due to white folks.

>BTW, where was MSNBC’s remembrance of the 9/11 attacks??

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-unedited-truth-why-msnbc-re-airs-911-coverage/

roxsteady- a failure in life so instead of taking responsibility for it or correcting it, blame it on her skin color.

m says:
April 20, 2010 at 12:41 pm

>BTW, where was MSNBC’s remembrance of the 9/11 attacks??

That was in 2006, m.

Where were they in 2007, 2008, 2009?

In M’s world, it’s more important to try to tie the TP movement to TM’s act of 15 years ago than to recall the largest terrorist attack EVER on the USA that happened less than 9 years ago.

Some folks need to find out if they really are a liberal.

Check this video to check if you are a lib.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4B-A_0KDuI

Oh, and m and TRRK, just what do American’s think about the TP movement?

Tea Party 48% Obama 44%
Monday, April 05, 2010

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Oh, no- just more hate toward BHO!

Gay protesters interrupt Obama at California fundraiser for Barbara Boxer
April 19, 2010 | 9:26 pm

“After a long day of work in Washington and a long transcontinental flight to Los Angeles, President Obama told a crowd of Democratic donors in Los Angeles on Monday night that he was “fired up!”

Turns out so were some of the crowd members.

The president’s 29-minute speech was interrupted several times by gay protesters impatient with the lack of progress in repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays.”

Well, this is just flat-out racism. It can’t be anything else.

Basically it was cool hearing McVeigh talk, listening to him, but the show was kind of lame with those strange and distracting graphics. Using pictures of McVeigh would have been a better choice. Though I can’t criticize any show that features in depth interviews with Timothy McVeigh, voluntarily given by him. Got to admit, that was kind of cool. Crucial stuff, really.

Using pictures of McVeigh would have been a better choice. ”
Agreed. That should have reviewed Burn’s “The Civil War” before making the silly “claymation” like shots.

It’s always interesting to watch various ideologies and viewpoints spin something to suit their needs and agendas.

Maddow’s pointless “report” ultimately can’t definitively make a conclusion that ALL sides can accept,which renders it irrelevant.

The same can be said for any inference that the Tea Party is somehow connected on any level with any other past events or organizations,movements and the like.

It serves the liberal left agenda to characterize angry American citizens who do not agree with the liberal agenda as crazy,radical,dangerous etc etc so yet again it’s irrelevant.

Gordon:
There’s an easy way to determine if you are a liberal. Simply ask yourself if you want/expect the government to give you something that you are unable or unwilling to earn in the marketplace.

If you answer yes, you are a liberal. Put more directly, you are a small drain on our country.

Note: Jon Stewart, Rachel, Keith, etc. are NOT liberals. They are among the most conservative people.
LIBERALS ARE THEIR PRODUCT!! They buy & sell influence for liberals just like a parts supplier buys & sells his goods.

The best thing about real libs is that are willing to stand up and yell, “look at me I’m stupid”.

Pointless report? The anniversary of the single biggest act of domestic terrorism, out side of the civil war, in our history?

Munch says:
April 20, 2010 at 12:37 pm
The ? is which university will roxsteady falsely claim be be a graduate of today?

http://www.phonydiploma.com/

If I am over on the right, I am definitely paying attention to what McVeigh has to say. You need to know that.

There’s a very good reason why there was no “real connection” drawn — because there IS none. It is a credit to Maddow that she recognized this, and didn’t fabricate one, regardless of how much she may have wanted to find one.

Let me repeat that for you folks with reading comprehension issues: There is NO connection from Timothy McVeigh to the Tea Party movement. For all of the people with rox in their heads who were waiting with bated breath for Maddow to do something like morph a photo of McVeigh so that he became Sarah Palin, sorry you are disappointed (not really).

Let me help you people who take Bill Clinton’s warnings about “demonizing” language as if it is sincere, and not just him doing his part to prevent a Democrat slaughter in November: Oklahoma City had NOTHING to do with words. It had everything to do with ACTIONS.

McVeigh was NOT a “dittohead.” He was an anti-government zealot who was inspired by the neo-Nazi novel The Turner Diaries. NOTHING Rush Limbaugh ever said had any butterfly effect causing the OKC bombing. McVeigh and his co-conspirator Terry Nichols decided to destroy the Murrah building because, they figured, the order that destroyed the Koresh compound in Waco (and almost everybody inside) must have come out of the OKC Federal Building. The killing of Idaho survivalist Randy Weaver’s wife and teenage son in a similar standoff in 1992 (during the George H.W. Bush Administration) put McVeigh and Nichols in the powerkeg category; the ACTION of ATF officers raising the agency’s flag over seventy-six charred and still-burning Davidian corpses was the spark. NOT simple words.

Clinton cited NO “demonizing” language that a reasonable person (Rox, put your hand down) could believe would have a causal effect leading up to anti-government violence. He just wants you to hear pugnacious GOP rhetoric that you might find offensive (such as Michele Bachmann’s “gangster government” line) and apply his disingenuous dire warning to it. But he knows that even if there ARE people out there attending Tea Parties who think like McVeigh, history tells us that federal workers under Barack Obama don’t have to fear any ACTION from them as long as BHO doesn’t send federal agents to kill members of dissident families.

They didn’t call Clinton “Slick Willie” for nothing. He is full of it, he knows it, and the rest of you should be able to figure it out!

valkyrie101 says:
April 20, 2010 at 2:07 pm

If I am over on the right, I am definitely paying attention to what McVeigh has to say. You need to know that.”

No, I think your Code Pink and the Anti-war libs will like to listen to him more.

Valkyrie, if I’m over on the left, I am definitely smearing my political critics as being the soul mates of a murdering thug.

Good post, Ln Smithee.

Thank goodness the tea party protesters have never had ANY sort of political association with that other EXPRESSLY “unrepentant domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers…

Cecelia, that is not what I meant. McVeigh provides a window into the language and thinking of someone who was willing to blow up innocent people. The tea party is legitimate, it is not out there representing the McVeighs of the world, recruiting them, or intentionally hooking up crazies. Nor does the tea party want them. Nevertheless it needs to know who they are, what they say, how they think, so that the tea party can ID McVeigh traits, that type of extreme person. The Timothy McVeigh types are not who the tea party seeks, correct? McVeigh was not a communist. He came like an orphan from a war zone, got mad at the government, chatted with a few friends about it, blew up a whole building, knowingly, with children present. His militia friends were on the right. The tea party needs to ID McVeigh like people, understand who he is, and rule them out of tea party events, or tea party philosophy.

Flash forward from 1995 to 2010 and McVeigh were alive today – he’d so be a Tea Party member, no question about it.

Calling Bill Ayers a domestic terrorist may be correct, but repentent is as repentent does, and no one has accused Bill Ayers of encouraging or engaging in violent conduct. How longs does a person have to be on the wagon from enagaging in mostly futile acts of “domestic terrorism”, no charges pending for 30 odd years, to be considered, if not repentent, then at least law abiding.

Minister Royal, no sane person agrees with what McVeigh did. And no sane person bends over backwards to equate all conservatives with McVeigh. Only extreme far left ideologues such as yourself do that.

no one has accused Bill Ayers of encouraging or engaging in violent conduct

Bill Ayers didn’t “encourage” violent conduct?

Ayers will receive absolution when he acknowledges his acts and admits they were wrong.

Bill Ayers was a revolutionary communist who wanted the violent overthrow of the US government. That was his and the Weathermen’s goal.

He’s still a communist but is now trying to overturn the system from withing by brainwashing and manipulating students by telling them lies about this country.

It’s simply amazing that the Tea Partiers are called seditionists by some when we have radicals like Ayers teaching and saying things about the American government that make Beck look like a boy scout.

If one is upset at what the TPs say about the US government, one should be outraged at what the likes of Ayers and Chomsky say. And teach.

no one has accused Bill Ayers of encouraging or engaging in violent conduct”

He himself admitted it.
“Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Where have you been??

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_672133.html

“Mr. Ayers admits to participating in bombings at a New York City police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Federal conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal surveillance.

Let’s check the score!! McVeigh – 168 dead and 600 injured
Ayers – 0-

The comparison? You be the judge.

Steve,
“Bill Ayers didn’t “encourage” violent conduct?”

Well, you understood what I mean’t, not recently. Why should a man who is a professor at a local college, who has no outstanding warrants, who has not committed or encouraged any acts of violence in 30 years, and when he did it was in opposition to the Viet Nam war, a view shared by the libertarians, and where innocent people were not targeted, not receieve absolution?

McVeigh is thankfully dead.

Ayers is still alive preaching and teaching his horrible beliefs.

Again, if one is upset at the anti-government statements from the Tea Partiers, one should be just outraged at the much worse anti-government teachings from Ayers.

That is if one is intellectually consistent and not using the matter for partisan gain.

why not receieve absolution?

Because, among other things, he hasn’t asked for it.

Bill Adkins says:
April 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Let’s check the score!! McVeigh – 168 dead and 600 injured
Ayers – 0-

The comparison? You be the judge.”

no one has accused Bill Ayers of encouraging or engaging in violent conduct”

I proved the above was a lie.

Nice try to change the subject, but ya lose Billo!

You will admit that Ayers is living according to the law and the Constitution? He once had, and maybe still does, have some wacky ideas but that is not a problem, is it? Aren’t you big on liberty, free speech, all of that?

Val the more you post the more senile you become.

You will admit that Ayers is living according to the law and the Constitution?”

Show me where that was mentioned. Your desire to protect anyone of the left , even it’s most violent, is staggering.

Aren’t you big on liberty, free speech, all of that?

Yes, he has every right to criticize the government. Nowhere did I say he didn’t. I have “problems” with him teaching his nonsense but that’s protected speech too. It’s part, broadly speaking, of academic freedom.

I just find it strange that some folks are upset at the anti-government views from Beck and the TP and yet big defenders of the anti-government views from Ayers and Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn et al.

Anyway, again: Ayers will receive absolution (from me) for his acts when he asks for it. He’s never asked for it as far as I know.

Bill Adkins says:
April 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Let’s check the score!! McVeigh – 168 dead and 600 injured
Ayers – 0-”

But it wasn’t for a lack of trying by Ayers, was it Bill?

Valkyrie, I apologize for misinterpreting your statements about the tea party “listening” to McVeigh’s statement.

I disagree completely with the idea that a man who says he has no regrets for his attempts to blow up buildings (and who wouldn’t undo the crime if he could) is somehow reformed because he hasn’t done it again.

I wouldn’t extend that sort of leeway and forgiveness to a friend or family member, let alone to a political zealot.

“Let’s check the score!! McVeigh – 168 dead and 600 injured
Ayers – 0-”

With that logic the people who first bombed the World Trade Center (and killed ‘only’ six people) were somehow more benign than the more effective 9/11 assailants.

THAT is inexcusable rationalizing!

No, Cecelia — that would be stupid and not what I said. I was pointing out the logic that killing no one is equivalent to killing 168 and injuring 600 is, as you put it, inexcusable rationalizing. See, Cecliia, causing property damage is likely a felony, probably a minor one. Killing someone, even just one, is much more serious, wouldn’t you say? Try to keep up.

Bill, you’re still arguing it’s the relative success of the crime that determines its moral gravity.

It’s not. And yes, yours is the worst sort of rationalizing.

You’re being obtuse, Cecelia.

hasan=registered democrat and obama consultant.

Valkyrie wrote:

You will admit that Ayers is living according to the law and the Constitution? He once had, and maybe still does, have some wacky ideas but that is not a problem, is it? Aren’t you big on liberty, free speech, all of that?

Yeah, I’m big on all that. But apparently, guys like Bill Clinton, Joe Klein, and Rahm Emanuel aren’t. They’re OK with free speech unless it is “demonizing” or “seditious” in their estimation (which just conveniently happens to be the kind of rhetoric that is eroding Dems’ chances of continuing to control Congress).

Funny thing is that Glenn Beck never stops preaching non-violence, but Bill Ayers has never ruled using violence in the future. So, are those Democrats deaf, blind, and dumb as a box of rox?

Let’s check the score!! McVeigh – 168 dead and 600 injured
Ayers – 0-”

But it wasn’t for a lack of trying by Ayers, was it Bill?

Munch,
Ayers is not violent. And not an advocate for violence these days, either. What I seek to protect is his free speech, and his right to be wrong, which I admit he is. There is nothing wrong with Ayers, from the standpoint of the law and the constitituion, however. Nor is there anything wrong with the tea party, as long as they remain committed to the law and constitution.

That is, “never ruled OUT using violence in the future.”

Ayers is not violent. And not an advocate for violence these days, either.”

Neither is David Berkowitz. So???

And I should add, neither are the Japanese.

You have evidence Ayres was trying to kill, Munch? The record indicates he broke some windows and destroyed a statute. Tell us more, perhaps cite us to something indicating an attempt to kill.

Yes, bombs are usually used to kill people.

Now Ayers is a liberal national treasure.

He himself admitted it.

“Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Where have you been??

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_672133.html

“Mr. Ayers admits to participating in bombings at a New York City police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. Federal conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal surveillance.

BTW, Bill- if he wanted to just break windows, he could have bought a BB gun.

BTW, Bill, not even BHO will claim your hero, Ayers.

I’ve been right here, Munch – http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=1

“”Even though I didn’t actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.” He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.”

And Ayers blew up a statue.

If you did your own research, munch, you’d seem a little (emphasize ‘a little’) more intelligent

No, you’re being pedantic, Bill Adkins.

Ayers may not have placed a bomb in the pentagon, but he was part of a group that did and he continues to believe it was worthwhile endeavor to this day.

You make a moral distinction between that an McVeigh. I can’t.

This pathetic Useful Idiot loses yet again. lol!! Did anyone watch except the janitorial staff and David Gregory?

It’s interesting that in a topic about Maddow’s argument that there is a direct causation between certain rhetoric and terrorist acts, that Bill Adkins makes the point that Bill Ayers was somehow less culpable than Maddow holds radio talk show hosts to be in the McVeigh bombing…

Ayers big crime is believing that stopping the war in Viet Nam was justified by violent act. The left stood up against Ayers, and his kind. Ayers was widely considered to be a wingnut by the left during the sixties and seventies. The Martin Luther King crowd preached peace, We did not advocate violence, it was a peaceful revolution. That was the left’s moral compass. Ayers was defeated by the left. Perhaps Obama befriended him so he could gloat. Certainly Obama was thinking for himself long before he met Ayers. The freedom to associate, a right also protected by the Constitution, means nothing if to associate is a badge of dishonor, in a free society, among law abiding men and woman.

“Sunnyr says:”

Alternate personality alert…

Bill, you would NEVER appear intelligent.. And I was quoting his book- not the gibberish he told the times which still maintains despite Billy’s protestations, that when he said, “We didn’t do enough” , he was referring to bombing, not protests.

Try again.

Bill Adkins quotes Bill Ayers from his self-serving memoir Fugitive Days:

“”Even though I didn’t actually bomb the Pentagon — we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.” He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.”

This account from Ayers has been cited by more than a few people to suggest that the Pentagon bomb was only supposed to cause damage to property, and not people. These are individuals who are either 1) leftist partisans who want to sanitize Ayers, or who 2) only use their heads as a hat rack.

For the latter, I invite you to close your eyes, grit your teeth and try to t-h-i-n-k. Think about a bomb destroying an empty restroom in your workplace. What’s the first thing you would think to yourself in such a situation? It would probably be something in the realm of, “Thank God I didn’t have to go at that moment!”

Which raises the question: How did “Anna” KNOW there wouldn’t be anyone in that restroom when the bomb exploded?

She couldn’t. She didn’t. And she DIDN’T CARE.

“Anna” may not (or may) have been willing to slaughter hundreds of people in the Pentagon that day like McVeigh was able to (but we’ll never know since Prof. Model Citizen won’t reveal his co-conspirators’ name), but she was willilng to take the chance that at least one poor woman who had been holding it in while taking dictation or finishing some clerical task wouldn’t be on the commode and blown to smithereens.

After all, that’s the whole idea of bombing, especially when your ultimate goal is to overthrow the United States government — you want to make people believe that for the simple act of working for the state, your life is in constant peril.

Nice try, Adkins. Sell your compost that Ayers was somehow going to accomplish a bloodless coup someplace else.

Try again, Bill, you are such a failure on so many levels.

In his 2001 book Fugitive Days, Ayers recounts his life as a Sixties radical and boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.” Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers writes, “Everything was absolutely ideal…. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” He adds:

“There’s something about a good bomb … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down.”

BTW, Bill Adkins- you are so stupid you didn’t read the first sentence of the NYTs’ article you cite. ‘

‘It reads: “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”

“The freedom to associate, a right also protected by the Constitution, means nothing if to associate is a badge of dishonor, in a free society, among law abiding men and woman.”

Valkyrie, the mere fact that you have confused the right to free association with questions of judgment as regards one’s associations, belies your argument that Ayers was stigmatized by the left.

BTW, Bill- Charles Manson did not kill any of the people he was charged with killing, but guess what? I guess he didn’t have a statue.

Cecelia,
Why should people be afraid to speak in a lawful manner to anyone? And what of it, if they do? Regan spoke with Gorby, even though they were diametrically opposed to each other. Yet they nevertheless learned stuff from one and other. Gorby did not embrace Reganism, Reagan did not embrace communism, but both sides learned something. So what is the big deal with Obama and Ayers? Reagan did not endorse Gorby, who ran the KGB during his prior life, by meeting him. Talking to someone does not in any way imply acceptance of what is being said by that person.

“Munch says:
April 20, 2010 at 7:23 pm
BTW, Bill Adkins- you are so stupid you didn’t read the first sentence of the NYTs’ article you cite. ‘

‘It reads: “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.””

BTW, Munch, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the English language. He doesn’t regret setting bombs (that killed no one, did property damage only) but then says ‘we didn’t do enough’ to stop the war in Vietnam. As to your Manson remark, you’re getting closer – Manson is more like Limbaugh than Ayers ever will be. Sharpen your crayons, dumbass, then maybe you can color inside the lines.

Biil you are full of it. He does not say but then says ‘we didn’t do enough’ to stop the war in Vietnam.

He says ‘We didn’t do enough”, you coward.

“‘I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said.

You are a liberal coward!

More for you, dunce Bill:

“In his 2001 book Fugitive Days, Ayers recounts his life as a Sixties radical and boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.” Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers writes, “Everything was absolutely ideal…. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” He adds:

“There’s something about a good bomb … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down.”

You have evidence Ayres was trying to kill, Munch?

LMAO

You are an asshole,lib.

Bill, what evidence do you have that McVeigh wanted to kill?

I hear he just wanted to blow out windows like you say Ayers did.

ROTFLMAO!

Bill, no one was killed by their bombs?

From the article you cite:

“He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. ”

You are just a stupid liberal!

And you continue to demonstrate your ignorance. It’s on display and I leave it for the readers to see.

From the article you cite:

“He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. ”

You are just a stupid liberal!

Bill, here is what one of your fans said about you. LOL

“AnonymousFinch says:
April 20, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Bill Adkins:

Beck said no such thing, and any reasonable person who watched that video would have to admit that fact. Once again you prove that: (1) you are the biggest hater on this board; and, (2) you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in letting the facts get in the way of your hateful rhetoric.

All liberals are stupid or they would not be liberals.

Synonyms: “Madcow” and “Failure.”

Where was all the talk of violent extremists when the left was protesting everything Bush did and carrying around signs picturing him as BusHitler? Oh yeah, that’s when Hillarious Clinton, she of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, said it was a Constitutional Right to protest, EXCEPT OF COURSE WHEN it’s ‘dangerous’ which is when tea partiers protest.

Maddow is a busted flush, a dry hole, a flash in the pan whose “investigations” steadfastly ignore any Muslims or ACORN or leftard maniacs like Dingy Harry Reid and Botox Queen Nancy Pelosi, along with Dumbo-Ears Obama whose daily lies and tergiversations make FoxNEWS more than a “terrible cynical news organization.”

Since the state-controlled media like MessNBC, CNN, and the nets with a “B” in their acronym all avoid any news that might show Obama is a feckless Carter-clone, FoxNEWS is the only alternative.

Well gordon, let’s look at the conservative track record: woman’s suffrage rights? Opposed it. Slavery? Endorsed it. Supporting big corporations? The whole industry gets paid off to do that. Indeed, conservatives work for the corporations, and like a lot of democrates too, jump for the scraps that the corporations throw.

Slavery?Endorsed it. ”

They abolished it in 1865. Nice that you make things up. You are now an official lying liberal.

So munch, you imagine that conservatives have not been around since 1865, or something?

valkyrie101 wrote:

Well gordon, let’s look at the conservative track record: woman’s suffrage rights? Opposed it. Slavery? Endorsed it.

Hey, everybody, gather ’round. Watch me make valkyrie101 disappear from this thread.

(Ahem) … Source?

Valkyrie, you just got dunked on, and it will be on the highlight reel at Sports Center tonight.

From the Wikipedia entry on famous suffragette Susan B. Anthony:

“On November 18, 1872, Anthony was arrested by a U.S. Deputy Marshal for voting illegally in the 1872 Presidential Election two weeks earlier. She had written to Stanton on the night of the election that she had ‘positively voted the Republican ticket – straight…’”